ReviewEuropean review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity2026
Effects of different training characteristics in combined resistance and cognitive training on motor and cognitive performance in older adults: A systematic review.
Review in European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity, 2026. 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.
- Effects of a Multimodal Exercise Intervention on Single- and Dual-Task Gait Performance in Older Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Pilot Study.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResistance training as well as cognitive training have shown benefits in improving muscle strength, mobility, and cognitive performance in older adults. However, the optimal strategies for combining these interventions remain unclear. This systematic review evaluates whether combined resistance and cognitive training improve muscle strength, mobility, and cognitive performance in older adults (≥ 65 years) with a specific focus on the most effective training characteristics.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PsycINFO identified Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), Controlled Clinical Trials (CCTs), and parallel group trials. Inclusion criteria were: (1) community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 without medical conditions, (2) interventions including combined resistance and cognitive training, (3) group comparisons, and (4) reporting of at least one cognitive and one physical outcome. No meta-analysis was conducted; instead, findings were synthesized narratively based on the quality and outcomes of the included studies, using a modified version of the Cochrane tool.
resultsA total of 4682 studies were retrieved, of which nine studies could be included. The number of participants in each group ranged from 18 to 376, with participants distributed across at least two and a maximum of four groups (age range from 65.5 ± 6.3 to 83.9 ± 6.3 years). Three studies used a sequential intervention, while six trials conducted simultaneous Cognitive-Motor Exercise (CME). The studies spanned durations from four to 52 weeks, incorporating various intervention designs and training protocols. Results indicated that programs delivered 2–3 times per week at least 30 min, at moderate- high intensity, for ≥ 12 weeks, most consistently improved both motor and cognitive outcomes.
conclusionCombined resistance and cognitive training improved cognitive and motor performance in older adults. Longer-term interventions (12 to 52 weeks) with training frequencies of two to three times per week, appear more likely to yield robust enhancements in cognitive functions and motor abilities. Future research should refine the optimal combination of resistance and cognitive training, considering individual differences and preferences. Also, training characteristics need to be reported in more detail to increase therapeutic validity. This Systematic Review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022337354).
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.