ReviewHeliyon2024
Therapeutic validity and replicability of power training interventions in older adults: A review using the TIDieR checklist and CONTENT scale.
Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reporting randomised trials of physical exercise or training interventions in older adults: the PETIO guideline.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that power training has the ability to improve muscle power and physical performance in older adults. However, power training definitions are broad and previously-established criteria are vague, making the validity and replicability of power training interventions used in RCTs uncertain. Objective: The aim of this review was to assess whether the power training interventions identified in a previous systematic review (el Hadouchi 2022) are fully described, therapeutically valid, and meet our proposed criteria for power training. Design: Review. Methods: Power training interventions used in older adults, previously-identified in a systematic review, were assessed. The completeness of intervention descriptions was evaluated using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), and therapeutic validity was evaluated using the CONTENT scale in combination with a set of criteria specific for power training. Results: None of the power training interventions were fully described or met the CONTENT scale's criteria for therapeutic validity. Five out of 14 interventions (35.7 %) met all specific power training criteria. Conclusions: Power training interventions used in RCTs comparing power training to strength training are poor to moderately described, may not be therapeutically valid, and may not reflect the construct of power training. This makes it difficult for clinicians or researchers to apply or replicate power training interventions reported in RCTs, and begs the question whether the true effects of power training have been estimated.
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.