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

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