Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 545

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Systematic Review of Progressive Resistance Strength Training in Older Adults

Latham, N. K., Bennett, D. A., Stretton, C. M., Anderson, C. S.·2004·The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
DOI 10.1093/gerona/59.1.m48
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to quantify the effectiveness of progressive resistance strength training (PRT) to reduce physical disability in older people. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials were identified from searches of relevant databases and study reference lists and contacts with researchers. Two reviewers independently screened the trials for eligibility, rated their quality, and extracted data. Only randomized controlled trials utilizing PRT as the primary intervention in participants, whose group mean age was 60 years or older, were included. Data were pooled using fixed or random effect models to produce weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated when different units of measurement were used for the outcome of interest. RESULTS: 62 trials (n = 3674) compared PRT with a control group. 14 trials had data available to allow pooling of disability outcomes. Most trials were of poor quality. PRT showed a strong positive effect on strength, although there was significant heterogeneity (41 trials [n = 1955], SMD 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52, 0.84). A modest effect was found on some measures of functional limitations such as gait speed (14 trials [n = 798], WMD 0.07 meters per second; 95% CI 0.04, 0.09). No evidence of an effect was found for physical disability (10 trials [n = 722], SMD 0.01; 95% CI -0.14, 0.16). Adverse events were poorly investigated, but occurred in most studies where they were defined and prospectively monitored. CONCLUSIONS: PRT results in improvements to muscle strength and some aspects of functional limitation, such as gait speed, in older adults. However, based on current data, the effect of PRT on physical disability remains unclear. Further, due to the poor reporting of adverse events in trials, it is difficult to evaluate the risks associated with PRT.

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 · 10.1093/gerona/59.1.m48

Cites

13 of 13 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 13 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Latham, N. K., Bennett, D. A., Stretton, C. M., & Anderson, C. S.
Venue
The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2004-01-01
Volume
59
Issue
1
Pages
M48-M61
ISSN
  • 1079-5006 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-535X
DOI
10.1093/gerona/59.1.m48
OpenAlex
W2170704717
Cited by
545
References
13
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.