Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41755895›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026

Remote exercise snacking and fall-related functional outcomes in older adults: a systematic review including a meta-analysis.

Simin Zhang, Mingkuai Wang, Ruting Lin, Zhenyu Shuai, Zeping Lv, Chu Wang, Ran Zhang, Tian Yang, Yubo Wang, Xuemin Zhang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors.

Simin Zhang *National Research Center for Rehabilitation Technical Aids, Beijing, China.
Mingkuai Wang *College of Education, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China.
Ruting Lin *College of Education, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China.
Zhenyu ShuaiPhysical Education Department, College of Basic Education, Beijing College of Finance and Commerce, Beijing, China.
Zeping LvNational Research Center for Rehabilitation Technical Aids, Beijing, China.
Chu WangNational Research Center for Rehabilitation Technical Aids, Beijing, China.
Ran ZhangNational Research Center for Rehabilitation Technical Aids, Beijing, China.
Tian YangNational Research Center for Rehabilitation Technical Aids, Beijing, China.
Yubo WangNational Research Center for Rehabilitation Technical Aids, Beijing, China.
Xuemin ZhangNational Research Center for Rehabilitation Technical Aids, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Falls are a leading cause of injury and death among older adults, yet many encounter barriers to engaging in conventional exercise programs. Remote exercise snacking (ES) refers to performing multiple (≥2 times) short bursts (≤10 min) of exercise of any type or intensity daily in a non-laboratory setting (including multiple sets of interval training), with complete rest or at least a 30-min recovery period between each exercise session, this represents a flexible alternative; however, its effectiveness remains inconclusive. This study addresses an important evidence gap by systematically evaluates the impact of remote exercise snacking on lower-limb muscle performance, balance ability, as well as its acceptability and feasibility in older adults. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in six databases (CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and FMRS) from inception to May, 2025. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment following PRISMA guidelines. Studies meet the following eligibility criteria in accordance with PICOS, participants were insufficiently active older adults; intervention involved short bouts of exercise; comparator/control were no specific intervention; the primary outcomes was lower-limb muscle function, with secondary outcomes included balance and/or participant adherence or acceptbility; and study design were randomized crossover or randomized control only. Muscle performance and balance outcomes were synthesized through meta-analysis using Stata v15.1 with standardized mean difference (SMD), while adherence and acceptability were evaluated narratively. Results: Four publications comprising ten studies (n = 313, M/F: 170/143) were included. Remote exercise snacking significantly improved lower-limb muscle strength (SMDpooled = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.06-0.52, p = 0.01) and endurance (SMDpooled = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.01-0.46, p = 0.04), but showed no significant effect on balance (SMDpooled = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.14-0.23, p = 0.65). Subgroup analyses showed that greater improvements in strength were observed in interventions lasting 6 weeks or longer and in those that incorporated progression strategies. The overall mean adherence across the included studies was 85%, with adherence generally higher in interventions that provided video-based guidance. Conclusion: Remote exercise snacking appears effective in improving lower-limb muscle function but shows limited impact on balance among healthy older adults. Intervention duration and the inclusion of progression are key determinants of efficacy. The delivery mode (e.g., written materials, video, or app-based platforms) and exercise type (e.g., bodyweight, Tai Chi, or combined formats) may influence the acceptability and feasibility of implementation. The main findings are summarized in a graphical abstract. Systematic Review Registration: Identifier CRD42024627584.

Indexed as

exercise snackfall-relatedmeta-analysisolder adultsremote

Identifiers

PMID41755895
PMCPMC12932249

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.