Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36618333›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of exercise science2022

Functional Benefits of Hard Martial Arts for Older Adults: A Scoping Review.

Ian Miller, Mike Climstein, Luke Del Vecchio

Open access · diamondAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of exercise science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ian MillerSport and Exercise Science, Faculty of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Bilinga, AUSTRALIA.
Mike ClimsteinPhysical Activity, Sport and Exercise Research Theme, Southern Cross University, School of Health and Human Sciences, Bilinga, Queensland, AUSTRALIA.
Luke Del VecchioSport and Exercise Science, Faculty of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Bilinga, AUSTRALIA.
Southern Cross University · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present scoping review focused upon the functional benefits of hard martial arts training for older adults. The AXIS Critical Appraisal Tool was used to appraise all studies included in the review. A systematic literature search identified 265 papers via electronic database and ten papers from additional sources. Of these, six studies featuring 240 participants were included in the final scoping review. Of the included studies, three were randomized control trials and three were comparative studies with concurrent controls. The available studies outlined improvements in functional fitness parameters for older adults participating in hard martial arts training (strength 9.3-34%; mobility 9.5-13.6%; aerobic endurance 13.4%; flexibility 11.1-316.7%; balance 20.5%). However, inconsistencies in training stimulus and a limited number of studies highlight the need for further research before hard martial arts can be recommended for older adults. Based upon the limited available literature, to improve functional fitness, hard martial arts training should be conducted for 60 to 90 minutes, at least twice a week for a minimum of eleven weeks.

Indexed as

Agingfunctional fitnessJiu-Jitsuphysical activityTaekwondo

Identifiers

PMID36618333
PMCPMC9797003
OpenAlexW4313880098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.