Progressive resistance strength training for improving physical function in older adults

Chiung-Ju Liu, Nancy K Latham, Chiung-Ju Liu, Nancy K Latham

Abstract

Background: Muscle weakness in old age is associated with physical function decline. Progressive resistance strength training (PRT) exercises are designed to increase strength.

Objectives: To assess the effects of PRT on older people and identify adverse events.

Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialized Register (to March 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to May 01, 2008), EMBASE (1980 to February 06 2007), CINAHL (1982 to July 01 2007) and two other electronic databases. We also searched reference lists of articles, reviewed conference abstracts and contacted authors.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials reporting physical outcomes of PRT for older people were included.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were pooled where appropriate.

Main results: One hundred and twenty one trials with 6700 participants were included. In most trials, PRT was performed two to three times per week and at a high intensity. PRT resulted in a small but significant improvement in physical ability (33 trials, 2172 participants; SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.22). Functional limitation measures also showed improvements: e.g. there was a modest improvement in gait speed (24 trials, 1179 participants, MD 0.08 m/s, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.12); and a moderate to large effect for getting out of a chair (11 trials, 384 participants, SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.38). PRT had a large positive effect on muscle strength (73 trials, 3059 participants, SMD 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.00). Participants with osteoarthritis reported a reduction in pain following PRT(6 trials, 503 participants, SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.13). There was no evidence from 10 other trials (587 participants) that PRT had an effect on bodily pain. Adverse events were poorly recorded but adverse events related to musculoskeletal complaints, such as joint pain and muscle soreness, were reported in many of the studies that prospectively defined and monitored these events. Serious adverse events were rare, and no serious events were reported to be directly related to the exercise programme.

Authors' conclusions: This review provides evidence that PRT is an effective intervention for improving physical functioning in older people, including improving strength and the performance of some simple and complex activities. However, some caution is needed with transferring these exercises for use with clinical populations because adverse events are not adequately reported.

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Latham is an author for two trials. The trials were rated independently by other reviewers in the first review.

Figures

1
1
Forest plot of comparison: 1 PRT versus control, outcome: 1.1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 2 Physical function domain of SF‐36/SF‐12 (Higher score = better function).
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 3 Activities of daily living measure (higher score = better function).
1.4. Analysis
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 4 Activity level measure (kJ/week).
1.5. Analysis
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 5 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.
1.6. Analysis
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 6 Main measure of aerobic function.
1.7. Analysis
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 7 VO2 or peak oxygen uptake.
1.8. Analysis
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 8 Six‐minute walk test (meters).
1.9. Analysis
1.9. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 9 Balance measures (higher = better balance).
1.10. Analysis
1.10. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 10 Balance measures (Low = better balance).
1.11. Analysis
1.11. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 11 Gait speed (m/s).
1.12. Analysis
1.12. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 12 Timed walk (seconds).
1.13. Analysis
1.13. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 13 Timed "Up‐and‐Go" (seconds).
1.14. Analysis
1.14. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 14 Time to stand from a chair.
1.15. Analysis
1.15. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 15 Stair climbing (seconds).
1.16. Analysis
1.16. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 16 Chair stand within time limit (number of times).
1.17. Analysis
1.17. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 17 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).
1.18. Analysis
1.18. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 18 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐36).
1.19. Analysis
1.19. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 19 Pain (lower score = less pain).
1.20. Analysis
1.20. Analysis
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 20 Death.
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 3 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min).
2.4. Analysis
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 4 Pain (higher score = less pain).
2.5. Analysis
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 5 Vitality (SF‐36, higher score = more vitality).
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 High versus variable intensity PRT, Outcome 1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 High versus variable intensity PRT, Outcome 2 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min).
4.1. Analysis
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 PRT frequency, Outcome 1 Main LL strength measure.
5.1. Analysis
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.
5.2. Analysis
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 2 Six‐minute walk test (meters).
5.3. Analysis
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 3 Timed walk (seconds).
5.4. Analysis
5.4. Analysis
Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds).
5.5. Analysis
5.5. Analysis
Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 5 Stair climbing (seconds).
6.1. Analysis
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).
6.2. Analysis
6.2. Analysis
Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 2 Main function measure (lower score = better function).
6.3. Analysis
6.3. Analysis
Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 3 Main lower limb strength measure.
6.4. Analysis
6.4. Analysis
Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 4 VO2 max (ml/kg.min).
6.5. Analysis
6.5. Analysis
Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 5 Six minute walk test (meters).
6.6. Analysis
6.6. Analysis
Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 6 Gait speed (m/s).
6.7. Analysis
6.7. Analysis
Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 7 Pain (lower score = less pain).
7.1. Analysis
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).
7.2. Analysis
7.2. Analysis
Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 2 Main lower limb strength measure.
7.3. Analysis
7.3. Analysis
Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 3 Timed "Up‐and‐Go" (seconds).
7.4. Analysis
7.4. Analysis
Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 4 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).
7.5. Analysis
7.5. Analysis
Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 5 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐36).
8.1. Analysis
8.1. Analysis
Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 1 SF36 (higher score = better function).
8.2. Analysis
8.2. Analysis
Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.
8.3. Analysis
8.3. Analysis
Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 3 Timed walk (seconds).
8.4. Analysis
8.4. Analysis
Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds).
8.5. Analysis
8.5. Analysis
Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 5 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).
8.6. Analysis
8.6. Analysis
Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 6 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐ 36).
9.1. Analysis
9.1. Analysis
Comparison 9 Power training, Outcome 1 Main lower limb strength measure.
10.1. Analysis
10.1. Analysis
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 1 Strength (grouped by allocation concealment).
10.2. Analysis
10.2. Analysis
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 2 Strength (grouped by assessor blinding).
10.3. Analysis
10.3. Analysis
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 3 Strength (grouped by intention‐to‐treat).
10.4. Analysis
10.4. Analysis
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 4 Strength (grouped by attention control).
10.5. Analysis
10.5. Analysis
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 5 Strength (grouped by exercise intensity).
10.6. Analysis
10.6. Analysis
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 6 Strength (grouped by exercise duration).
10.7. Analysis
10.7. Analysis
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 7 Strength (grouped by health status).
10.8. Analysis
10.8. Analysis
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 8 Strength (grouped by functional limitations).

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere