Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35544136›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2022

Comparison of Power Training vs Traditional Strength Training on Physical Function in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Anoop T Balachandran, James Steele, Daniel Angielczyk, Mark Belio, Brad J Schoenfeld, Norberto Quiles, Nicole Askin, Ahmed M Abou-Setta

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Anoop T BalachandranDepartment of Family, Nutrition, and Exercise Sciences, Queens College, The City University of New York, Flushing, New York.
James SteeleSchool of Sport, Health, and Social Sciences, Solent University, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Daniel AngielczykDepartment of Family, Nutrition, and Exercise Sciences, Queens College, The City University of New York, Flushing, New York.
Mark BelioDepartment of Family, Nutrition, and Exercise Sciences, Queens College, The City University of New York, Flushing, New York.
Brad J SchoenfeldHealth Sciences Department, The City University of New York Lehman College, Bronx, New York.
Norberto QuilesDepartment of Family, Nutrition, and Exercise Sciences, Queens College, The City University of New York, Flushing, New York.
Nicole AskinNeil John Maclean Health Sciences Library, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Ahmed M Abou-SettaGeorge and Fay Yee Center for Healthcare Innovation, Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Queens College, CUNY · USUniversity of Manitoba · CALehman College · USSouthampton Solent University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Strength training exercise is recommended for improving physical function in older adults. However, whether strength training (lifting and lowering weights under control) and power training (PT) (lifting weights fast and lowering under control) are associated with improved physical function in older adults is not clear. Objective: To evaluate whether PT vs traditional strength training is associated with physical function improvement in older adults. Data Sources: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, PsycInfo, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus were conducted from database inception to October 20, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared strength training with instructions to move the weight as fast as possible in the lifting phase with traditional strength training in healthy, community-living older adults (age ≥60 years). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Summary effect size measures were calculated using a multilevel random-effects model with cluster robust variance estimation and are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs). Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included physical function and self-reported physical function. Secondary outcomes included power, strength, muscle mass, walk speed, balance, and adverse effects. Results: A total of 20 RCTs enrolling 566 community-living older adults (mean [SD] age, 70.1 [4.8] years; 368 [65%] women) were included. For the primary outcomes, PT was associated with an improvement in physical function with low-certainty evidence in 13 RCTs (n = 383) (SMD, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.05-0.54) and self-reported function with low-certainty evidence in 3 RCTs (n = 85) (SMD, 0.38; 95% CI, -0.62 to 1.37). The evidence was downgraded by 2 levels for high risk of bias and imprecision for physical function and very serious imprecision for self-reported physical function. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, PT was associated with a modest improvement in physical function compared with traditional strength training in healthy, community-living older adults. However, high-quality, larger RCTs are required to draw more definitive conclusions.

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingAgedBiasExerciseFemaleHealth StatusHumansMaleMiddle AgedWalking

Identifiers

PMID35544136
PMCPMC9096601
OpenAlexW4280534808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.