Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35953775›Full record

ReviewEuropean review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity2022

Effectiveness of power training compared to strength training in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mohamed El Hadouchi, Henri Kiers, Ralph de Vries, Cindy Veenhof, Jaap van Dieën

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mohamed El HadouchiInstitute for Human Movement Studies, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 7, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Mohamed.elhadouchi@hu.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9501-6408
Henri KiersInstitute for Human Movement Studies, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 7, 3584 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ralph de VriesDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Cindy VeenhofResearch Group Innovation of Movement Care, University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 7, 3584 CS, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jaap van DieënDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
University of Applied Sciences Utrecht · NLVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek NWO 2017/BOO/00279639
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch suggests that muscle power is a more critical determinant of physical functioning in older adults than muscle strength. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on the effect of power training compared to strength training in older adults on tests for muscle power, two groups of activity-based tests under controlled conditions: generic tests and tests with an emphasis on movement speed, and finally, physical activity level in daily life.

methodsA systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing effects of power training to strength training in older adults was performed in PubMed, Embase, Ebsco/CINAHL, Ebsco/SPORTDiscus, Wiley/Cochrane Library and Scopus. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool, and quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool. Standardized mean differenences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for outcomes separately using a random effects model.

resultsFifteen trials and 583 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Results indicated a statistically significant benefit of power training on all reported outcomes (muscle power SMD: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.44, p < 0.001; generic activity-based tests SMD: 0.37, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.68; p = 0.02, activity-based tests emphasizing movement speed SMD: 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.62, p < 0.001). None of the included studies used physical activity level in daily life as outcome.

conclusionsPower training offers more potential for improving muscle power and performance on activity tests in older adults compared to strength training. Future research should assess exercise parameters for power training in older adults. In addition, the validity and reliability of the tests used must be evaluated to establish a standardized test protocol. This protocol should also include measurements of physical activity in daily life.

Indexed as

Activity testsMuscle powerMuscle strength

Identifiers

PMID35953775
PMCPMC9367108
OpenAlexW4290991958

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.