Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 725

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nutritional, Physical, Cognitive, and Combination Interventions and Frailty Reversal Among Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Ng, Tze Pin, Feng, Liang, Nyunt, Ma Shwe Zin, Feng, Lei, Niti, Mathew, Tan, Boon Yeow, Chan, Gribson, Khoo, Sue Anne, Chan, Sue Mei, Yap, Philip, Yap, Keng Bee·2015·The American Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is important to establish whether frailty among older individuals is reversible with nutritional, physical, or cognitive interventions, singly or in combination. We compared the effects of 6-month-duration interventions with nutritional supplementation, physical training, cognitive training, and combination treatment vs control in reducing frailty among community-dwelling prefrail and frail older persons. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group, randomized controlled trial in community-living prefrail and frail old adults in Singapore. The participants' mean age was 70.0 years, and 61.4% (n = 151) were female. Five different 6-month interventions included nutritional supplementation (n = 49), cognitive training (n = 50), physical training (n = 48), combination treatment (n = 49), and usual care control (n = 50). Frailty score, body mass index, knee extension strength, gait speed, energy/vitality, and physical activity levels and secondary outcomes (activities of daily living dependency, hospitalization, and falls) were assessed at 0 months, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. RESULTS: Frailty score and status over 12 months were reduced in all groups, including control (15%), but were significantly higher (35.6% to 47.8%) in the nutritional (odds ratio [OR] 2.98), cognition (OR 2.89), and physical (OR 4.05) and combination (OR 5.00) intervention groups. Beneficial effects were observed at 3 months and 6 months, and persisted at 12 months. Improvements in physical frailty domains (associated with interventions) were most evident for knee strength (physical, cognitive, and combination treatment), physical activity (nutritional intervention), gait speed (physical intervention), and energy (combination intervention). There were no major differences with respect to the small numbers of secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Physical, nutritional, and cognitive interventional approaches were effective in reversing frailty among community-living older persons.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.06.017

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 725

Metadata

Authors
Ng, T. P., Feng, L., Nyunt, M. S. Z., Feng, L., Niti, M., Tan, B. Y., Chan, G., Khoo, S. A., Chan, S. M., Yap, P., & Yap, K. B.
Venue
The American Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
128
Issue
11
Pages
1225-1236.e1
ISSN
0002-9343 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2105061478
Cited by
725
References
7
FWCI
24.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nutritional, Physical, Cognitive, and Combination Interventions and Frailty Reversal Among Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.06.017
The paper
Ng, T. P., Feng, L., Nyunt, M. S. Z., Feng, L., Niti, M., Tan, B. Y., Chan, G., Khoo, S. A., Chan, S. M., Yap, P., & Yap, K. B. (2015). Nutritional, Physical, Cognitive, and Combination Interventions and Frailty Reversal Among Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The American Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.06.017

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.