MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283697128 · doi:10.1186/s12877-022-03170-9

Community-based group physical activity and/or nutrition interventions to promote mobility in older adults: an umbrella review

2022· review· en· W4283697128 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Neil‐Sztramko, Kylie Teggart, Caroline M. Moore, Diana Sherifali, Donna Fitzpatrick‐Lewis, Giulia Coletta, Stuart M. Phillips, K. Bruce Newbold, Elizabeth Álvarez, Ayse Kuspinar, Courtney Kennedy, Pasqualina Santaguida, Rebecca Ganann

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLPsychological interventionGerontologySystematic reviewMEDLINEAerobic exercisePhysical therapyStrength trainingQuality of life (healthcare)Nursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physical activity and a healthy diet are important in helping to maintain mobility with aging. This umbrella review aims to identify group-based physical activity and/or nutrition interventions for community-dwelling older adults that improve mobility-related outcomes. METHODS: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Sociological Abstracts) were searched from inception to December 2021. Eligibility criteria included systematic reviews exploring the effectiveness of physical activity or structured exercise, alone or combined with nutrition interventions on mobility-related outcomes (aerobic capacity, physical function, balance, falls/safety, muscle strength, health-related quality of life/wellbeing). Interventions must have been delivered in a group setting to community-dwelling older adults aged 55+. Two reviewers independently performed eligibility screening, critical appraisal (using AMSTAR 2) and data extraction. The GRADE approach was used to reflect the certainty of evidence based on the size of the effect within each mobility-related outcome category. Older adult/provider research partners informed data synthesis and results presentation. RESULTS: In total, 62 systematic reviews (1 high, 21 moderate, 40 low/critically low quality) were identified; 53 included physical activity only, and nine included both physical activity and nutritional supplements. No reviews included nutrition interventions alone. Combined aerobic/resistance, general physical activity, and mind-body exercise all improved physical function and balance (moderate-high certainty). Aerobic/resistance training improved aerobic capacity (high certainty). Resistance training and general physical activity improved muscle strength (moderate certainty). Aerobic/resistance training and general physical activity are likely to reduce falls among older adults (moderate certainty). There was no evidence of benefit for nutritional supplementation with physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Group-based physical activity interventions that combine aerobic and resistance, general PA and mind-body exercise can improve measures of mobility in community-dwelling older adults. We found no reviews focused on nutrition only, highlighting a gap in the literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0140.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207