Strength training to prevent falls in older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Claudino, JG
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Afonso, J, Sarvestan, J, Lanza, MB, Pennone, J, Filho, CAC, Serrão, JC, Espregueira-Mendes, J, Vasconcelos, ALV, Andrade, MP, Rocha-Rodrigues, S, Andrade, R, Ramirez-Campillo, R
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://hdl.handle.net/10216/153772
Resumo: We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effects of strength training (ST), as compared to alternative multimodal or unimodal exercise programs, on the number of falls in older adults (=60 years). Ten databases were consulted (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, EMBASE, PEDro, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science), without limitations on language or publication date. Eligibility criteria were as follows: RCTs with humans =60 years of age of any gender with one group performing supervised ST and a group performing another type of exercise training, reporting data pertaining falls. Certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Meta-analysis used a random effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) for number of falls. Five RCTs with six trials were included (n = 543, 76% women). There was no difference between ST and alternative exercise interventions for falls (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.77–1.30, p = 0.99). The certainty of evidence was very low. No dose–response relationship could be established. In sum, ST showed comparable RR based on number of falls in older adults when compared to other multimodal or unimodal exercise modalities, but evidence is scarce and heteroge-neous, and additional research is required for more robust conclusions. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020222908.
id RCAP_18e8d24d4a2b611f668f118a748d3353
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/153772
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Strength training to prevent falls in older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsElderlyFallsPublic healthStrength trainingUnimodal exercise programsWe performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effects of strength training (ST), as compared to alternative multimodal or unimodal exercise programs, on the number of falls in older adults (=60 years). Ten databases were consulted (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, EMBASE, PEDro, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science), without limitations on language or publication date. Eligibility criteria were as follows: RCTs with humans =60 years of age of any gender with one group performing supervised ST and a group performing another type of exercise training, reporting data pertaining falls. Certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Meta-analysis used a random effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) for number of falls. Five RCTs with six trials were included (n = 543, 76% women). There was no difference between ST and alternative exercise interventions for falls (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.77–1.30, p = 0.99). The certainty of evidence was very low. No dose–response relationship could be established. In sum, ST showed comparable RR based on number of falls in older adults when compared to other multimodal or unimodal exercise modalities, but evidence is scarce and heteroge-neous, and additional research is required for more robust conclusions. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020222908.MDPI20212021-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/10216/153772eng2077-038310.3390/jcm10143184Claudino, JGAfonso, JSarvestan, JLanza, MBPennone, JFilho, CACSerrão, JCEspregueira-Mendes, JVasconcelos, ALVAndrade, MPRocha-Rodrigues, SAndrade, RRamirez-Campillo, Rinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-29T15:12:16Zoai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/153772Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T00:18:00.591477Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Strength training to prevent falls in older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title Strength training to prevent falls in older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
spellingShingle Strength training to prevent falls in older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Claudino, JG
Elderly
Falls
Public health
Strength training
Unimodal exercise programs
title_short Strength training to prevent falls in older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full Strength training to prevent falls in older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr Strength training to prevent falls in older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Strength training to prevent falls in older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_sort Strength training to prevent falls in older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
author Claudino, JG
author_facet Claudino, JG
Afonso, J
Sarvestan, J
Lanza, MB
Pennone, J
Filho, CAC
Serrão, JC
Espregueira-Mendes, J
Vasconcelos, ALV
Andrade, MP
Rocha-Rodrigues, S
Andrade, R
Ramirez-Campillo, R
author_role author
author2 Afonso, J
Sarvestan, J
Lanza, MB
Pennone, J
Filho, CAC
Serrão, JC
Espregueira-Mendes, J
Vasconcelos, ALV
Andrade, MP
Rocha-Rodrigues, S
Andrade, R
Ramirez-Campillo, R
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Claudino, JG
Afonso, J
Sarvestan, J
Lanza, MB
Pennone, J
Filho, CAC
Serrão, JC
Espregueira-Mendes, J
Vasconcelos, ALV
Andrade, MP
Rocha-Rodrigues, S
Andrade, R
Ramirez-Campillo, R
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Elderly
Falls
Public health
Strength training
Unimodal exercise programs
topic Elderly
Falls
Public health
Strength training
Unimodal exercise programs
description We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effects of strength training (ST), as compared to alternative multimodal or unimodal exercise programs, on the number of falls in older adults (=60 years). Ten databases were consulted (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, EMBASE, PEDro, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science), without limitations on language or publication date. Eligibility criteria were as follows: RCTs with humans =60 years of age of any gender with one group performing supervised ST and a group performing another type of exercise training, reporting data pertaining falls. Certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Meta-analysis used a random effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) for number of falls. Five RCTs with six trials were included (n = 543, 76% women). There was no difference between ST and alternative exercise interventions for falls (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.77–1.30, p = 0.99). The certainty of evidence was very low. No dose–response relationship could be established. In sum, ST showed comparable RR based on number of falls in older adults when compared to other multimodal or unimodal exercise modalities, but evidence is scarce and heteroge-neous, and additional research is required for more robust conclusions. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020222908.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021
2021-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/10216/153772
url https://hdl.handle.net/10216/153772
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 2077-0383
10.3390/jcm10143184
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv MDPI
publisher.none.fl_str_mv MDPI
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799136099501604865