MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285198821 · doi:10.1177/21514593221090799

Progressive Resistance Training Program Characteristics in Rehabilitation Programs Following Hip Fracture: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

2022· review· en· W4285198821 on OpenAlexaff
Ailar Ramadi, Victor E. Ezeugwu, Sydnie Weber, Martha Funabashi, Camila Astolphi Lima, Mônica Rodrigues Perracini, Lauren A Beaupré

Bibliographic record

VenueGeriatric Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip and Femur Fractures
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic CollegeUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicinePhysical therapyRehabilitationHip fractureRandomized controlled trialStrength trainingMeta-regressionStrictly standardized mean differenceMEDLINEPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Older adults often experience incomplete recovery after a hip fracture. Rehabilitation programs with progressive resistance training are associated with improved functional recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression a) evaluated resistance training characteristics reported in hip fracture rehabilitation programs, b) performed meta-analysis of resistance training impact on strength (primary outcome), gait and physical activity (secondary outcomes), and c) explored resistance training program characteristics associated with improved outcomes using meta-regression. Materials and Methods: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHLPLUS, and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched (January2000–February2021). Randomized controlled trials including progressive resistance training rehabilitation programs after hip fracture surgery in adults ≥50 years old were included. Meta-analyses and exploratory meta-regression were performed. Results: Meta-analysis showed significant increases in strength (10 trials-728 participants; Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) [95%CI]; .40 [.02, .78]) immediately following program completion in intervention relative to control participants. Meta-analysis on 5 trials (n = 384) with extended follow up found no significant group differences (SMD = .47 [-.28, 1.23]) in strength. Center-based relative to home-based programs were associated with significantly greater improvements in strength ( P < .05) as were programs where resistance training intensity was prescribed using one-repetition maximum relative to other exercise prescription methods ( P < .05). In gait meta-analysis (n = 10 trials-704 participants), gait speed in intervention participants immediately after the program was significantly higher than control (SMD = .42 [.08, .76]) but this finding was not maintained in extended follow-up (n = 5 trials-240 participants; SMD = .6 [-.26, .38]). Higher resistance training intensity was associated with significant improvements in gait speed ( P < .05). No meta-analysis was performed for the 3 heterogeneous studies reporting physical activity. Discussion: Progressive resistance training improved muscle strength and gait speed after hip fracture surgery in adults ≥50years old immediately after the program ended, but the longer-term impact may be more limited. Conclusions: Higher resistance training intensity and center-based programs may be associated with more improvement, but require further research.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.015
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.265 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeriatric Orthopaedic Surgery & RehabilitationSame topicHip and Femur FracturesFrench-language works237,207