Cited by 141Nutrition and Health in AgingFrailty in Older AdultsBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention

Residual effects of muscle strength and muscle power training and detraining on physical function in community-dwelling prefrail older adults: a randomized controlled trial.

Open access
Zech, Astrid, Drey, Michael, Freiberger, Ellen, Hentschke, Christian, Bauer, Juergen M, Sieber, Cornel C, Pfeifer, Klaus·2012·BMC Geriatrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although resistance exercise interventions have been shown to be beneficial in prefrail or frail older adults it remains unclear whether there are residual effects when the training is followed by a period of detraining. The aim of this study was to establish the sustainability of a muscle power or muscle strength training effect in prefrail older adults following training and detraining. METHODS: 69 prefrail community-dwelling older adults, aged 65-94 years were randomly assigned into three groups: muscle strength training (ST), muscle power training (PT) or controls. The exercise interventions were performed for 60 minutes, twice a week over 12 weeks. Physical function (Short Physical Performance Battery=SPPB), muscle power (sit-to-stand transfer=STS), self-reported function (SF-LLFDI) and appendicular lean mass (aLM) were measured at baseline and at 12, 24 and 36 weeks after the start of the intervention. RESULTS: For the SPPB, significant intervention effects were found at 12 weeks in both exercise groups (ST: p = 0.0047; PT: p = 0.0043). There were no statistically significant effects at 24 and 36 weeks. In the ST group, the SPPB declined continuously after stop of exercising whereas the PT group and controls remained unchanged. No effects were found for muscle power, SF-LLFDI and aLM. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that both intervention types are equally effective at 12 weeks but did not result in statistically significant residual effects when the training is followed by a period of detraining. The unchanged SPPB score at 24 and 36 weeks in the PT group indicates that muscle power training might be more beneficial than muscle strength training. However, more research is needed on the residual effects of both interventions. Taken the drop-out rates (PT: 33%, ST: 21%) into account, muscle power training should also be used more carefully in prefrail older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00783159)

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 · 10.1186/1471-2318-12-68

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • Six RCTs recruited older adults with low to moderate functioning.

    “Most of the studies (14 of 20 [70%]) enrolled community-living older adults who were well functioning, and 6 RCTs recruited older adults with low to moderate functioning.30,33,39,50,51”
  • Most studies (14 of 20 [70%]) enrolled community-living older adults who were well functioning.

    “Most of the studies (14 of 20 [70%]) enrolled community-living older adults who were well functioning, and 6 RCTs recruited older adults with low to moderate functioning.30,33,39,50,51”

    From Comparison of Power Training vs Traditional Strength Training on Physical Function in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Methods describe one trial of 69 prefrail, community-dwelling older adults, not a set of 20 studies. A search for the 14-of-20 figure and well-functioning participants found no passage in our copy that verifies the quoted majority claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Five included studies had good internal validity, eight were classified as poor to fair, and one was classified as having poor internal validity.

    “Five studies were considered to have ‘good’ internal validity [3, 30, 33, 35, 38], 8 studies were classified as ‘poor’ to ‘fair’ [4, 5, 9, 29, 31, 32, 37, 39], and 1 study was classified as having ‘poor’ interal validity [7].”

    From Effectiveness of power training compared to strength training in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as [38]

    The citation to Zech’s trial [7] is attached to the classification of one study as having poor internal validity, not to the counts for the other studies. The Methods describe random allocation and a blinded assessor, and the Results report attrition, but our copy does not classify the trial’s internal validity as poor. Searched for internal validity, quality ratings, and risk of bias; no passage establishes that classification. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    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

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zech, A., Drey, M., Freiberger, E., Hentschke, C., Bauer, J. M., Sieber, C. C., & Pfeifer, K.
Affiliations
  • Universität Hamburg (DE)
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Zech, Astrid
Venue
BMC Geriatrics
Published
2012-11-07
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
68-68
ISSN
1471-2318 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2128918644
Cited by
141
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3
FWCI
4.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Geriatrics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OPUS FAU (Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund Berlin-Brandenburg (KOBV), on behalf of the Universitätsbibliothek Erlangen-Nürnberg) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Robert Bosch Stiftung
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Keywords
pre-frailty, older adults, resistance training, muscle power training, detraining, residual effects, physical function, Short Physical Performance Battery, sit-to-stand, appendicular lean mass, community-dwelling older adults
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Exercise Therapy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Physical Fitness, Residence Characteristics, Frail Elderly, Treatment Outcome, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training

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