Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35688586›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Effect of eHealth-delivered exercise programmes on balance in people aged 65 years and over living in the community: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Meghan Ambrens, Stephanie Alley, Juliana S Oliveira, Quyen To, Kim Delbaere, Corneel Vandelanotte, Anne Tiedemann

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.6field-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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Meghan AmbrensSchool of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia m.ambrens@neura.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9117-7722
Stephanie AlleyPhysical Activity Research Group, Appleton Institute, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9666-5071
Juliana S OliveiraInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Quyen ToPhysical Activity Research Group, Appleton Institute, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.
Kim DelbaereNeuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5655-0234
Corneel VandelanottePhysical Activity Research Group, Appleton Institute, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.
Anne TiedemannInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Apple (Israel) · ILThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Applied Health Sciences · HRUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionExercise that challenges balance is proven to prevent falls in community-dwelling older people, yet widespread implementation and uptake of effective programmes is low. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesised the evidence and evaluated the effect of eHealth-delivered exercise programmes compared with control on balance in community-dwelling people aged ≥65 years.

methodsNine databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL and Embase, were searched from inception to January 2022 to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating eHealth-delivered exercise programmes for community-dwelling people aged ≥65 years, published in English that included a balance outcome. Primary outcomes were static and dynamic balance. Secondary outcomes included fall risk and fear of falling. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs, Hedges' g) with 95% CIs from random effects meta-analyses.

resultsWe identified 14 eligible studies that included 1180 participants. Methodological quality ranged from 3 to 8 (mean, 5). The pooled effect indicated that eHealth-delivered exercise programmes have a medium significant effect on static balance (11 studies; SMD=0.62, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.72) with very low-quality evidence. There was small statistically significant effect on dynamic balance (14 studies; SMD=0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73) with very low-quality evidence, and fall risk (5 studies; SMD=0.32, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.64) with moderate-quality evidence. No significant effect of eHealth programmes on fear of falling was found (four studies; SMD=0.10, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.24; high-quality evidence).

conclusionThis review provides preliminary evidence that eHealth-delivered exercise programmes improved balance and reduced fall risk in people aged ≥65 years. There is still uncertainty regarding the effect of eHealth delivered exercise programmes on fear of falling. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018115098.

Indexed as

Postural BalanceTelemedicineAgedExercise TherapyFearHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicgeriatric medicinepreventive medicinepublic healthrehabilitation medicinetelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID35688586
PMCPMC9189851
OpenAlexW4281740343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.