Skip to main content

Table 3 Main outcome measures and secondary outcome measures with respective results

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   
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   
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   
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   
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   
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)   
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)   
Timonen et al. [33] mood (Zung self-rating depression scale) Compared with CG subjects and EG ones improved: mood   
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