From: Exercise and health in frail elderly people: a review of randomized controlled trials
Study | Main outcome measures | Results (main outcome) | Secondary outcome measures | Results (secondary outcome) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gill et al. [21] | Summary disability score (performance in ADLs) | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: disability scores (moderately frail subgroup) | Admission to and number of days spent in a nursing home | No differences were achieved |
Timonen et al. [31] | ADL and IADL levels (Joensuu classification) | No differences were achieved | Â | Â |
Binder et al. [37] | Modified PPT, functional status questionnaire (FSQ), and ADL instruments | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: modified PPT score, and FSQ score | Strength knee extension (KET) and flexion torque (KFT); gait; balance (progressive Romerg Test, Berg balance Test (BBT), and single-limb stance); body composition; quality of life (SF-36), and a modified hip rating questionnaire (HRQ) | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: KET (both limbs), 1RM (knee extension and flexion, seated bench press, seated row, leg press, and biceps curl), fast walking speed, Berg balance score, single-limb stance time (fractured leg), HRQ score, and the change in health and physical function subscale scores of the SF-36 |
Gill et al. [40] | Self-reported IADLs; mobility (modified performance oriented mobility assessment—POMA); timed rapid gait and chair stands; and modified PPT | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: IADL, timed rapid gait, mobility, timed chair stands, and modified PPT |  |  |
Dorner et al. [27] | Muscle function, cognitive function (MMSE) | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: muscle function | Lean body mass, ADLs, mobility (Tinetti score), and depression | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: LBM |
Alexander et al. [39] | Bed- and chair-rise task performance ability and time taken to rise | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: bed- and chair-rise task performance ability and time taken to rise | strength, range of motion (ROM), and trunk lateral balance | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: trunk lateral balance, ROM, and strength (mainly in trunk region) |
Jensen et al. [28] | Ambulation (functional ambulations category scale), usual, and maximum gait speed, balance (BBT), and step height. | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: step height and ambulation (not decreased), usual, and maximum gait speed | Risk of falling | No differences were achieved |
Shimada et al. [30] | Balance (one leg standing, functional reach, manual perturbation test, functional balance scale, and POMA) and gait (timed up-and-go [TUG], and stair climbing/descending) | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: balance | Â | Â |
Wolf et al. [36] | FF (e.g., gait speed, functional reach test, timed chair–stand, timed 360°–turn, and single limb stance) | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: chair–stand (after 4 and 8-month training) | Height, weight, BMI, Systolic, diastolic blood pressure, and resting heart rate | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: BMI, SBP, and resting heart rate |
Binder et al. [14] | Modified PPT, VO2 peak, and ADL measures (FSQ) | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: modified PPT score, VO2 peak, and FSQ score | KET and KFT; balance (leg stance time, and BBT); change health subscale of SF-36; and weight | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: KET, KFT, balance (one leg stance time and BBT), and change in health subscale SF-36 |
Brown et al. [15] | PPT, balance, gait, strength, flexibility, speed of reaction, and coordination, peripheral sensation | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: PPT score, stregth, balance, and gait | Â | Â |
Chin A Paw et al. [16] | FF tests (e.g., balance and gait speed), physical fitness (e.g., strength, flexibility, and reaction time), self-rated disabilities in ADLs | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: FF score (mainly chair–stand, touching toes, and walking speed) and physical performance when adjusted for baseline scores |  |  |
Rydwik et al. [29] | Muscle strength, FF (30-second chair–stand, balance tandem and one leg stance, TUG, and gait speed), ADLs (functional independence measure), and IADLs (instrumental activity measures) | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: strength; no differences persisted achieved 9 months after randomization |  |  |
Timonen et al. [32] | Knee (KET) and hip abduction strength, balance (14-item BBT), and maximal walking speed | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: hip abduction strength, KET, balance, and walking speed | Â | Â |
Wolf et al. [34] | Strength, flexibility, cardiovascular endurance, body composition, IADL score, depression, and fear of falling | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: left handgrip strength and systolic blood pressure (TC group); however, TC exercisers reduced the distance ambulated (cardiovascular endurance) | Time-specific risk for falls | No differences were achieved |
Miller et al. [38] | Weight, quadriceps strength, usual gait speed, and quality of life (SF-12) | No differences were achieved | Â | Â |
Rosendahl et al. [41] | Balance (BBT), gait, and lower limb strength (1RM or chair–stand) | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: usual gait speed, balance, and lower-limb strength |  |  |
de Jong et al. [18] | Body composition (dual–energy X-ray absorptiometry) | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: lean body mass; exercise had no effect on bone parameters | Weight, BMI, waist and hip, and waist-to-hip circumferences | No differences were achieved |
Ehsani et al. [19] | Maximal cardiac output (heart rate, left ventricular [LV] function), arteriovenous O2 content difference | Compared with CG sujects, EG ones improved: cardiac output, LV stroke work (peak effort) and peak heart rate | Body composition LBM and weight | Compared with CG sujects, EG Ones improved: LBM |
Greiwe et al. [23] | Cytokine tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) level, protein synthesis rate, and lipoprotein lipase (LPL) | EG had decreased skeletal muscle TNF-α and increased LPL expression and protein synthesis rate |  |  |
Seynnes et al. [35] | Knee extension strength (KET) | Compared with CG subjects and EG ones improved: KET | Functional limitations (6-min walking, chair-rising, and stair climbing) and self-reported disability (French version of health assessment questionnaire and disability index subscale) | Compared with CG subjects, EG ones improved: 6-min walking (just for EG-HI), chair-rising, and stair climbing |
Chin A Paw et al. [17] | Subjective well being (subscales: health, self-respect, morale, optimism, and contacts) | No differences were achieved | Self-rated health | No differences were achieved |
Greenspan et al.[22] | Perceived health status (sickness impact profile) and self-rated health | Compared with CG subjects and EG ones improved: perceived health status (physical dimension, mainly, ambulatory category) | Â | Â |
Sattin et al. [25] | Fear of falling (Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale [ABC], and fall efficacy scale) | Compared with CG subjects and EG ones improved: fear of falling (ABC) | Â | Â |
Timonen et al. [33] | mood (Zung self-rating depression scale) | Compared with CG subjects and EG ones improved: mood | Â | Â |
Latham et al. [24] | Self-rated physical health (physical component of the SF-36) and risk of falls | No differences were achieved | ADL, physical performance (strength, balance, mobility, and gait speed), FF, fear of falling, social activities, and mental health | No differences were achieved |
Faber et al. [20] | Fall risk | Fall risk in prefrail subjects (EGs) decreased but it increased in frail elderly (EGs) | mobility (POMA) and FF and self-reported disability (ADL, and IADL) | Compared with CG subjects and EG ones improved: mobility (POMA score) and FF (prefrail subgroup); FF decreased in frail subgroup (EG) |
Wolf et al. [26] | Fall risk | EG presented lower fall risk from months 4 to 12 |  |  |