Effects of resistance training on self-reported disability in older adults with functional limitations or disability – a systematic review and meta-analysis

Olsen, Pia Øllgaard; Termannsen, Anne-Ditte; Bramming, Maja; Tully, Mark A.; Caserotti, Paolo

doi:10.1186/s11556-019-0230-5

European Review of Aging and Physical Activity

Table 5 Results from stratified meta-analyses on the effects of resistance training on self-reported disability/function in older adults with functional limitation or disability

From: Effects of resistance training on self-reported disability in older adults with functional limitations or disability – a systematic review and meta-analysis

	Summary statistics							Heterogeneity statistics
				95% CI	95% CI	Weight				Q-stat.
Variable	Sub-group	N	SMD	low	high	%	p-value	Q-stat	d.f	p-value	I²%
Overall effect of RT on self-reported disability		14	0.589	0.253	0.925	100.00	0.001	52.26	13	< 0.001	75.1
Participant characteristics
Participant mean age	< 80 years	5	0.106	−0.192	0.404	35.3	0.485	4.12	4	0.390	2.9
Participant mean age	≥80 years	9	0.830	0.381	1.280	64.7	0.001	38.99	8	< 0.001	79.5
Residential status	CD	4	0.163	−0.194	0.520	30.8	0.370	5.00	3	0.172	40.0
	SH	3	0.262	−0.199	0.723	21.1	0.265	2.91	2	0.233	31.1
	GI	7	1.027	0.438	1.617	48.1	0.001	31.67	6	< 0.001	81.1
Gait speed at baseline	≥ 0.8 m/s	4	0.154	−0.233	0.540	33.2	0.436	5.48	3	0.140	45.2
Gait speed at baseline	< 0.8 m/s	9	0.829	0.312	1.346	66.8	0.002	37.77	8	< 0.001	78.8
Resistance training modalities
Work load intensity**	< 70%1RM	7	0.843	0.222	1.464	40.7	0.008	25.74	6	< 0.001	76.7
	≥70% 1RM	8	0.580	0.185	0.975	51.8	0.004	20.72	7	0.004	66.2
	ND	1	0.000	−0.566	0.566	7.5	–	–	0	–	–
Frequency, sessions/week	3	11	0.669	0.272	1.067	78.0	0.001	42.69	10	< 0.001	76.6
	2	2	0.515	−0.566	1.596	14.3	0.350	4.79	1	0.029	79.1
	7	1	0.000	−0.566	0.566	7.8	–	–	0	–	–
Study quality parameters
Allocation concealment	Yes	6	0.352	0.011	0.693	43.7	0.043	9.84	5	0.08	49.2
Allocation concealment	No	8	0.761	0.207	1.316	56.3	0.007	39.00	7	< 0.001	82.1
Groups were similar at baseline	Yes	11	0.506	0.102	0.911	78.1	0.014	45.64	10	< 0.001	78.1
Groups were similar at baseline	No	3	0.873	0.515	1.231	21.9	< 0.001	0.88	2	0.645	0.0
Subjects were blinded	Yes	7	0.651	0.107	1.195	51.9	0.019	37.25	6	< 0.001	83.9
Subjects were blinded	No	7	0.522	0.109	0.935	48.1	0.013	14.86	6	0.021	59.6
Assessors were blinded	Yes	11	0.421	0.150	0.639	78.8	0.002	20.84	10	0.022	52.0
Assessors were blinded	No	3	1.128	−0.215	2.472	21.2	0.100	23.90	2	< 0.001	96.6
End point data on 85% of the participants was obtained	Yes	7	0.743	0.194	1.293	51.2	0.008	35.24	6	< 0.001	83.0
End point data on 85% of the participants was obtained	No	7	0.409	0.028	0.791	48.8	0.036	13.63	6	0.034	56.0
Intention-to-treat analysis were performed	Yes	8	0.764	0.191	1.337	56.8	0.009	42.75	7	< 0.001	83.6
Intention-to-treat analysis were performed	No	6	0.349	0.065	0.633	43.3	0.016	6.86	5	0.231	27.2

*Results by the derSimonian and Laird random-effects method using Hedges’ g
**In this sub-analysis two studies [17, 45] are represented by two intervention groups that exercised at different intensities
SMD Standardised Mean Difference, CI Confidence Intervals, d.f. degrees of freedom, Q Heterogeneity statistics, I² the variation in SMD attributable to heterogeneity, CD Community-Dwelling, GI Geriatric Institution, SH sheltered housing, ND no data, RM repetition maximum, m/s meter per second

Back to article page

ISSN: 1861-6909

Contact us

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com