Resistance training improves mobility disability in community-dwelling older adults: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mobility disability is the impairment in function that affects the performance of daily tasks due to declines in physical function. Exercise interventions, particular resistance training, may have a positive impact on mobility disability, but the evidence for the effects of resistance training in older adults with mobility disability has not been previously systematically reviewed. This study was a systematic review of evidence related to resistance training on physical function for adults over 65 years of age with mobility disability. Four databases (PEDro, MedLine, Ovid, Web of Science) were searched from inception to February 2, 2021 for randomized controlled trials. Twenty-four articles from 22 studies (3,656 participants) were included in the review. Mean participant age ranged from 63-87 years and exercise interventions ranged from 10 weeks to 12 months in duration. Greater changes in 6-minute Walk Test (6MWT) distance (n=638, p<0.0001; mean difference (MD) 16.1 metres; 95%CI 12.3-19.9), lower extremity strength (n=785, p<0.0001; standard MD 2.01; 95%CI 1.27-2.75) and usual gait speed (n=2,106, p<0.001; MD 0.05 metres/second, 95%CI 0.03-0.07) were seen with resistance training as compared to control. These results were maintained if resistance training was a sole intervention or a component of a multi-component program. Sensitivity analysis based on risk of bias concerns did not change results. This review demonstrates that resistance training improves walking capacity, strength and walking speed in community-dwelling older adults and may facilitate aging in place. Since improvements in strength and gait speed contribute to independence, our results indicate highly beneficial outcomes for older persons.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".