MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199326308 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20200222

Effectiveness of physical activity interventions in older adults with frailty or prefrailty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3199326308 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute for AgingMcMaster UniversityAlberta Health ServicesAlberta HealthUniversity of CalgaryUniversité LavalUniversity of AlbertaHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionCINAHLMeta-analysisPhysical therapyMEDLINEData extractionRehabilitationSystematic reviewGerontologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background:</h3> Physical activity is known to prevent frailty and reduce its consequences; however, it remains unclear which interventions are optimal for older adults with frailty. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify effective physical activity interventions in improving outcomes related to frailty. <h3>Methods:</h3> We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL (inception to July 2019) for English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of physical activity interventions in adults aged 65 years or more who were prefrail or frail; we included observational and cohort studies when there were no RCT data. Outcomes of interest were frailty, mobility, physical function, cognitive function, use of health care services and quality of life. After data extraction, we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for observational studies, rated the certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, and assessed statistical and methodologic heterogeneity. <h3>Results:</h3> We identified 26 studies (24 RCTs [1 of which did not have any relevant outcomes for extraction] and 2 observational studies) involving 8022 prefrail or frail older adults. Nine studies had low risk of bias, 2 had high risk of bias, and for 13 the risk of bias was unclear. The trials included mixed (aerobic and muscle-strengthening) (<i>n</i> = 13), muscle-strengthening (<i>n</i> = 8), mobilization and rehabilitation (<i>n</i> = 4) or aerobic (<i>n</i> = 1) activities. Significant effects were found for mobility (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 0.83), activities of daily living (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.84), cognitive function (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.61), quality of life (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.07) and frailty (SMD −1.29, 95% CI −2.22 to −0.36; risk ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93), with moderate certainty of evidence. <h3>Interpretation:</h3> There is low-to moderate-level evidence that various physical activity interventions are beneficial for prefrail and frail older adults. Studies need to better define frailty to ensure the identification and implementation of such interventions into clinical practice. <h3>PROSPERO registration:</h3> CRD42020144556

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it