SynthesisAge and ageing2023
Remote collection of physical performance measures for older people: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Age and ageing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceptability and Effectiveness of a Fully Web-Based Nutrition and Exercise Program for Individuals With Chronic Disease During COVID-19: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Developing Consumer Consensus on Remote Assessment and Management of Physical Function in Older Adults (RAMP): International Modified Delphi Process.JMIR aging · 2026Article
- Validation of a markerless motion capture app for automated scoring of sit-to-stand, timed up and go, and short physical performance battery tests in adults with chronic disease.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Validity and reliability of assessing strength and balance improvements by videoconference in pre-frail and frail older adults.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Article
- Remote assessment of physical function in older people: feasibility, safety and agreement with in-person administration.Age and ageing · 2025Article
- Remote assessment of physical fitness via videoconferencing: a systematic review.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Article
- Remote fitness assessment in younger and middle-aged to older adults: a comparison between laboratory- and videoconference-based assessment of selected measures of physical and cognitive fitness.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Remotely collected physical performance measures could improve inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research as well as enabling continuation of research in pandemic conditions. It is unclear whether remote collection is feasible and acceptable to older patients, or whether results are comparable to face-to-face measures. We conducted a systematic review according to a prespecified protocol. We included studies with mean participant age ≥ 60 years, with no language restriction. Studies examining the gait speed, Short Physical Performance Battery, distance walk tests, grip strength, Tinetti score, Berg balance test, sit-to-stand test and timed up and go were included. Reports of feasibility, acceptability, correlation between remote and face-to-face assessments and absolute differences between remote and face-to-face assessments were sought. Data were synthesised using Synthesis Without Meta-analysis methodology; 30 analyses from 17 publications were included. Study size ranged from 10 to 300 participants, with a mean age ranging from 61 to >80 years. Studies included a broad range of participants and conditions. Most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias. Only two studies undertook assessment of acceptability or feasibility, reporting good results. Correlation between face-to-face and remote measures was variable across studies, with no measure showing consistently good correlation. Only nine studies examined the accuracy of remote measures; in six studies, accuracy was rated as good (<5% mean difference between face-to-face and remote measures). There is a lack of robust evidence that remote collection of physical performance measures is acceptable to patients, feasible or provides comparable results to face-to-face measures.
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.