Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38647999›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

Supervised Versus Unsupervised Exercise for the Improvement of Physical Function and Well-Being Outcomes in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Paola Gómez-Redondo, Pedro L Valenzuela, Javier S Morales, Ignacio Ara, Asier Mañas

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.8field-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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Staying engaged: a scoping review of psychological and motivational drivers of adherence to technology-supported physical activity in older adults.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2025
    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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Paola Gómez-RedondoGENUD Toledo Research Group, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Avda. Carlos III s/n, 45071, Toledo, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6116-8435
Pedro L ValenzuelaPhysical Activity and Health Research Group (PaHerg), Research Institute of Hospital, 12 de Octubre (imas12), Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1730-3369
Javier S MoralesMOVE-IT Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Cadiz, Cadiz, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3255-3246
Ignacio AraGENUD Toledo Research Group, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Avda. Carlos III s/n, 45071, Toledo, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2854-6684
Asier MañasGENUD Toledo Research Group, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Avda. Carlos III s/n, 45071, Toledo, Spain. asier.manas@uclm.es.ORCID 0000-0002-1683-1365
Instituto de Salud Carlos III · ESUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ESUniversidad de Alcalá · ESUniversidad de Cádiz · ES

Funding

Government of Castilla-La Mancha and European Union through the European Regional Development Fund SBPLY/21/180501/000119Instituto de Salud Carlos III CD21/00138Instituto de Salud Carlos III Sara BorrellJunta de Andalucía PAIDI 2020Junta de Andalucía POSTDOC_21_00725Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación FPU20/05210Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha MS2021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnsupervised exercise intervention (UNSUP) appears to be a practical and beneficial strategy for older adults, although its feasibility and effectiveness compared to supervised exercise intervention (SUP) remains unknown. We aimed to compare the safety, attendance/adherence rates, and effectiveness of SUP versus UNSUP on physical function and well-being outcomes in older adults.

methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and APA PsycINFO up to September 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing SUP versus UNSUP in older adults (≥ 60 years). Safety and attendance/adherence rates were registered as indicators of feasibility, and meta-analyses were performed for physical function and well-being outcomes. Sub-analyses were performed for those studies that applied a similar intervention in both groups and for those studies where participants performed ≥ 66% of the sessions in the assigned condition.

resultsThirty-four studies were included (n = 2830). No serious adverse events were reported, with similar attendance rates (81%) for both SUP and UNSUP. Compared with UNSUP, SUP induced significant higher benefits on knee extension strength (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.18, p = 0.002), sit-to-stand test (STS, SMD = 0.25, p = 0.050), timed-up-and-go test (TUG, SMD = 0.21, p = 0.035), usual gait speed (SMD = 0.29, p = 0.026), lean mass (mean difference = 1.05 kg, p < 0.001) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL, SMD = 0.21, p = 0.035), albeit only knee extension strength remained significant in sensitivity analyses. Sub-analyses revealed superior benefits of SUP on knee extension strength when only considering those studies that applied a similar intervention in both SUP and UNSUP groups. However, no significant benefits were found for the remaining outcomes. Beneficial effects of SUP over UNSUP were also observed for knee extension strength, STS, functional reach test, TUG, usual gait speed, lean mass, and HRQoL when separately analyzing those studies in which participants performed ≥ 66% of the sessions in the assigned condition.

conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that both SUP and UNSUP programs are safe and could exert benefits on physical function and HRQoL. However, despite being associated with similar attendance rates, SUP might offer some additional benefits, although further high-quality research (i.e., accounting for confounding factors such as presence of supervised sessions in UNSUP or vice versa, as well as equating the exercise dose) is necessary to confirm these findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022326420.

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyMuscle StrengthRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAgedHumansMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePhysical Functional PerformancePostural BalanceQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID38647999
PMCPMC11258164
OpenAlexW4394997984

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.