Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35783735›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2022

Impact of Motor-Cognitive Interventions on Selected Gait and Balance Outcomes in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Kaja Teraz, Luka Šlosar, Armin H Paravlić, Eling D de Bruin, Uros Marusic

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Effects of different training characteristics in combined resistance and cognitive training on motor and cognitive performance in older adults: A systematic review.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Kaja TerazInstitute for Kinesiology Research, Science and Research Centre Koper, Koper, Slovenia.
Luka ŠlosarInstitute for Kinesiology Research, Science and Research Centre Koper, Koper, Slovenia.
Armin H ParavlićInstitute for Kinesiology Research, Science and Research Centre Koper, Koper, Slovenia.
Eling D de BruinInstitute of Human Movement Sciences and Sport, Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Uros MarusicInstitute for Kinesiology Research, Science and Research Centre Koper, Koper, Slovenia.
Alma Mater Europaea · SIETH Zurich · CHMasaryk University · CZUniversity of Ljubljana · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Efficient performance of most daily activities requires intact and simultaneous execution of motor and cognitive tasks. To mitigate age-related functional decline, various combinations of motor and cognitive training have shown promising results. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to evaluate the efficacy of different types of motor-cognitive training interventions (e.g., sequential and simultaneous) on selected functional outcomes in healthy older adults. Methods: Six online academic databases were used to retrieve eligible RCTs up to April 2021, following PRISMA guidelines and PICO criteria. A random-effects model was used for all meta-analyses conducted on selected functional outcomes: single- and dual-task gait speed, the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG), and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) score. Effect size (ES) was calculated as Hedges' g and interpreted as: Results: From 2,546 retrieved records, 91 RCTs were included for meta-analysis ( Conclusions: This study provides evidence for the effectiveness of various types of motor-cognitive interventions on performance-based measures of functional mobility in healthy older adults. With respect to significant effects, gait speed under single-task condition was improved by motor-cognitive interventions, but the evidence shows that this type of intervention is not necessarily more beneficial than motor training alone. On the other hand, motor-cognitive interventions are better at improving multicomponent tasks of dynamic balance and mobility function, as measured by the TUG. Because of substantial heterogeneity and the current limited availability of different types of interventions, the conclusions should be interpreted with caution.

Indexed as

dual-taskelderlymobilitymotor-cognitive interventionpostural control

Identifiers

PMID35783735
PMCPMC9245546
OpenAlexW4283024128

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.