SynthesisPhysiological reports2022
Efficacy of power training to improve physical function in individuals diagnosed with frailty and chronic disease: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Physiological reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Non invasive techniques for direct muscle quality assessment after exercise intervention in older adults: a systematic review.BMC geriatrics · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of power training to improve physical function in individuals diagnosed with frailty and chronic disease: A meta-analysis.Physiological reports · 2022Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Muscle power training with emphasis on high-velocity of concentric movement improves physical functionality in healthy older adults, and, maybe superior to traditional exercise programs. Power training may also be advantageous for patients with acute and chronic illnesses, as well as frail individuals. To determine the efficacy of power training compared with traditional resistance training on physical function outcomes in individuals diagnosed with frailty, acute illness or chronic disease. PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, PEDro, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. (1) at least one study group receives muscle power training of randomized controlled trial (RCT) (2) study participants diagnosed as prefrail, frail or have an ongoing acute or chronic disease, condition or illness; (3) study participants over the age of 18; (4) publication in English language; (5) included physical function as the primary or secondary outcome measures. Two independent reviewers assessed articles for inclusion and graded the methodological quality using Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for RCTs. Fourteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. In seven studies, muscle power training was more effective at improving physical function compared to control activities with a mean fixed effect size (ES) of 0.41 (p = 0.006; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.71). Power training and conventional resistance training had similar effectiveness in eight studies with a mean fixed ES of 0.10 (p = 0.061; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.40). Muscle power training is just as efficacious for improving physical function in individuals diagnosed with frailty and chronic disease when compared to traditional resistance training. The advantages of power training with reduced work per session may support power training as a preferential exercise modality for clinical populations. The findings should be interpreted with caution since generalizability is questioned due to the heterogeneity of patient populations enrolled and participants were relatively mobile at baseline.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.