Effect of Resistance Exercises on Function in Older Adults with Osteoporosis or Osteopenia: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the effect of resistance exercises on self-reported physical function and activities of daily living (ADL) in older adults with osteoporosis or osteopenia. METHODS: A search of available literature was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Studies were included if they involved (1) randomized controlled trials; (2) participants with osteoporosis or osteopenia; (3) resistance exercise as an intervention; and (4) self-report of physical function or ADL. Articles were independently reviewed for quality by two authors using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Cohen's d effect size was calculated by dividing standardized mean differences by the standard deviation to determine treatment effect in terms of physical function or ADL. RESULTS: Five full-text articles were selected for inclusion. PEDro scores ranged from 5 to 7 (out of 10). Effect size mean differences as a result of resistance intervention ranged from 0.08 to 1.74, suggesting "trivial" to "large" effects on self-reported physical function and ADL. CONCLUSION: RESULTS suggest that interventions using resistance training have a beneficial impact on the domains of physical function and ADL in participants with osteoporosis or osteopenia. More high-quality studies are needed to lend further validity to this supposition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".