Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 91 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exercise interventions for older adults: A systematic review of meta-analyses

Open access
Di Lorito, Claudio, Long, Annabelle, Byrne, Adrian, Harwood, Rowan H., Gladman, John R.F., Schneider, Stefan, Logan, Pip, Bosco, Alessandro, van der Wardt, Veronika·2021·Journal of Sport and Health Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The evidence concerning which physical exercise characteristics are most effective for older adults is fragmented. We aimed to characterize the extent of this diversity and inconsistency and identify future directions for research by undertaking a systematic review of meta-analyses of exercise interventions in older adults. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science for articles that met the following criteria: (1) meta-analyses that synthesized measures of improvement (e.g., effect sizes) on any outcome identified in studies of exercise interventions; (2) participants in the studies meta-analyzed were adults aged 65+ or had a mean age of 70+; (3) meta-analyses that included studies of any type of exercise, including its duration, frequency, intensity, and mode of delivery; (4) interventions that included multiple components (e.g., exercise and cognitive stimulation), with effect sizes that were computed separately for the exercise component; and (5) meta-analyses that were published in any year or language. The characteristics of the reviews, of the interventions, and of the parameters improved through exercise were reported through narrative synthesis. Identification of the interventions linked to the largest improvements was carried out by identifying the highest values for improvement recorded across the reviews. The study included 56 meta-analyses that were heterogeneous in relation to population, sample size, settings, outcomes, and intervention characteristics. RESULTS: The largest effect sizes for improvement were found for resistance training, meditative movement interventions, and exercise-based active videogames. CONCLUSION: The review identified important gaps in research, including a lack of studies investigating the benefits of group interventions, the characteristics of professionals delivering the interventions associated with better outcomes, and the impact of motivational strategies and of significant others (e.g., carers) on intervention delivery and outcomes.

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.jshs.2020.06.003

Cites

91 of 91 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 91 references

Cited by

See all 264

Metadata

Authors
Di Lorito, C., Long, A., Byrne, A., Harwood, R. H., Gladman, J. R. F., Schneider, S., Logan, P., Bosco, A., & van der Wardt, V.
Venue
Journal of Sport and Health Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
29-47
ISSN
  • 2213-2961 (ISSN-L)
  • 2095-2546
OpenAlex
W3033037954
Cited by
264
References
91
FWCI
4.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

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: Exercise interventions for older adults: A systematic review of meta-analyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jshs.2020.06.003
The paper
Di Lorito, C., Long, A., Byrne, A., Harwood, R. H., Gladman, J. R. F., Schneider, S., Logan, P., Bosco, A., & van der Wardt, V. (2021). Exercise interventions for older adults: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Journal of Sport and Health Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2020.06.003

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.