Cited by 112Physical Activity and HealthBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrailty in Older Adults

Physical activity intervention effects on physical function among community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Chase, Jo-Ana D., Phillips, Lorraine J., Brown, Marybeth·2017·Journal of Aging and Physical Activity

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effects of supervised resistance and/or aerobic training physical activity interventions on performance-based measures of physical functioning among community-dwelling older adults, and to identify factors impacting intervention effectiveness. Diverse search strategies were used to identify eligible studies. Standardized mean difference effect sizes ( d, ES) were synthesized using a random effects model. Moderator analyses were conducted using subgroup analyses and meta-regression. Twenty-eight studies were included. Moderator analyses were limited by inconsistent reporting of sample and intervention characteristics. The overall mean ES was 0.45 ( k = 38, p ≤ .01), representing a clinically meaningful reduction of 0.92 s in the Timed Up and Go for treatment versus control. More minutes per week ( p < .01) and longer intervention session duration ( p < .01) were associated with larger effects. Interventions were especially effective among frail participants ( d = 1.09). Future research should clearly describe sample and intervention characteristics and incorporate frail populations.

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 · 10.1123/japa.2016-0040

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The physical function changes observed in this study were similar to those reported in the InVEST trial.

    “Further, the physical function changes we observed were similar to those reported in the InVEST trial (31, 32).”

    From Effectiveness of a Disability Preventive Intervention for Minority and Immigrant Elders: The Positive Minds-Strong Bodies Randomized Clinical Trial (2019) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Intervention Effects section reports improved physical function across the studies in the meta-analysis, but it does not compare those changes with the InVEST trial. A search of our copy for “InVEST” found no passage identifying the trial or reporting its physical-function changes, so the claimed similarity cannot be checked against this source. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 97 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Borde R, Hortobágyi T, Granacher U. Dose-Response Relationships of Resistance Training in Healthy Old Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine (Auckland, NZ). 2015; 45(12):1693-1720. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0385-9. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Dickersin, K. Publication Bias: Recognizing the Problem, Understanding Its Origins and Scope, and Preventing Harm. In: HRRAJS, MB, editors. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2006. p. 9-33.Retrieved from http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0470870168.ch2/summary · DOI
  3. Lustosa L, Silva J, Coelho F, Pereira D, Parentoni A, Pereira L. Impact of resistance exercise program on functional capacity and muscular strength of knee extensor in pre-frail community-dwelling older women: a randomized crossover trial. Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia. 2011; 15(4):318-24. http://doi.org/S1413-35552011000400010. [PubMed: 21971726]
  4. Nicola F, Catherine S. Dose-response relationship of resistance training in older adults: a meta- analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2011; 45(3):233-234. http://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm. 2010.083246. [PubMed: 21257666] · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chase, J.-A. D., Phillips, L. J., & Brown, M.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
Venue
Journal of Aging and Physical Activity
Published
2017-01
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
149-170
ISSN
  • 1063-8652 (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-267X
OpenAlex
W2530075840
Cited by
112
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2
FWCI
0.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Aging and Physical Activity (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Missouri
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (T32NR009356)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
Keywords
physical activity interventions, resistance training, aerobic exercise, physical function, community-dwelling older adults, Timed Up and Go test, frailty, intervention dosage, supervised exercise
MeSH terms
Aged, Humans, Physical Education and Training, Physical Fitness, Quality of Life, Independent Living

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