Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Entrenamiento de fuerza con resistencia progresiva para mejorar la función física en adultos mayores

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Ades 1996 {published data only}

Ades PA, Ballor DL, Ashikaga T, Utton JL, Nair KS. Weight training improves walking endurance in healthy elderly persons. Annals of Internal Medicine 1996;124(6):568‐72. [MEDLINE: 96175655]

Baker 2001 {published data only}

Baker KR, Nelson ME, Felson DT, Layne JE, Sarno R, Roubenoff R. The efficacy of home based progressive strength training in older adults with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Rheumatology 2001;28:1655‐65.

Balagopal 2001 {published data only}

Balagopal P, Schimke JC, Ades P, Adey D, Nair KS. Age effect on transcript levels and synthesis rate of muscle MHC and response to resistance exercise. American Journal of Physiology. Endocrinology and Metabolism 2001;280(2):E203‐8.

Ballor 1996 {published data only}

Ballor DL, Harvey‐Berino JR, Ades PA, Cryan J, Calles‐Escandon J. Contrasting effects of resistance and aerobic training on body composition and metabolism after diet‐induced weight loss. Metabolism: Clinical & Experimental 1996;45(2):179‐83.

Barrett 2002 {published data only}

Barrett CJ, Smerdely P. A comparison of community‐based resistance exercise and flexibility exercise for seniors. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2002;48(3):215‐9.

Baum 2003 {published data only}

Baum EE, Jarjoura D, Polen AE, Faur D, Rutechi G. Effectiveness of a group exercise program in a long‐term care facility: a randomized pilot trial. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 2003;4(2):74‐80.

Bean 2004 {published data only}

Bean JF, Herman S, Kiely DK, Frey IC, Leveille SG, Fielding RA, et al. Increased Velocity Exercise Specific to Task (InVEST) training: a pilot study exploring effects on leg power, balance, and mobility in community‐dwelling older women. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2004;52(5):799‐804.

Beneka 2005 {published data only}

Beneka A, Malliou P, Fatouros I, Jamurtas A, Gioftsidou A, Godolias G, et al. Resistance training effects on muscular strength of elderly are related to intensity and gender. Journal of Science & Medicine in Sport 2005;8(3):274‐83.

Bermon 1999 {published data only}

Bermon S, Philip P, Ferrari P, Candito M, Dolisi C. Effects of a short‐term strength training programme on lymphocyte subsets at rest in elderly humans. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology 1999;79(4):336‐40.

Boshuizen 2005 {published data only}

Boshuizen HC, Stemmerik L, Westhoff MH, Hopman‐Rock M. The effects of physical therapists' guidance on improvement in a strength‐training program for the frail elderly. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity 2005;13(1):5‐22.

Brandon 2000 {published data only}

Brandon LJ, Boyetter LW, Gaasch DA, Lloyd DG. Effects of lower extremity strength training on functional mobility in older adults. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity 2000;8(3):214‐27.

Brandon 2003 {published data only}

Brandon LJ, Gaasch DA, Boyette LW, Lloyd AM. Effects of long‐term resistive training on mobility and strength in older adults with diabetes. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2003;58(8):740‐5.

Brochu 2002 {published data only}

Ades PA, Savage PD, Brochu M, Tischler MD, Lee NM, Poehlman ET. Resistance training increases total daily energy expenditure in disabled older women with coronary heart disease. Journal of Applied Physiology 2005;98(4):1280‐5.
Ades PA, Savage PD, Cress ME, Brochu M, Lee NM, Poehlman ET. Resistance training on physical performance in disabled older female cardiac patients. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2003;35(8):1265‐70.
Brochu M, Savage P, Lee M, Dee J, Cress ME, Poehlman ET, et al. Effects of resistance training on physical function in older disabled women with coronary heart disease. Journal of Applied Physiology 2002;92(2):672‐8.

Bruunsgaard 2004 {published data only}

Bruunsgaard H, Bjerregaard E, Schroll M, Pedersen BK. Muscle strength after resistance training is inversely correlated with baseline levels of soluble tumor necrosis factor receptors in the oldest old. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2004;52(2):237‐41.

Buchner 1997 {published data only}

Buchner DM, Cress ME, de Lateur BJ. The effect of strength and endurance training on gait, balance, fall risk and health services use in community‐living older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 1997;52(4):M218‐24.
Buchner DM, Cress ME, de Lateur BJ, Wagner EH. Variability in the effect of strength training on skeletal muscle in older adults. Facts and Research in Gerontology 1993;7:143‐53.
Coleman EA, Buchner DM, Cress ME, Chan BKS, de Lateur BJ. The relationship of joint symptoms with exercise performance in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1996;44(1):14‐21.

Casaburi 2004 {published data only}

Casaburi R, Bhasin S, Cosentino L, Porszasz J, Somfay A, Lewis MI, et al. Effects of testosterone and resistance training in men with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. American Journal of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine 2004;170(8):870‐8.

Castaneda 2001 {published data only}

Castaneda C, Gordon PL, Uhlin KL, Levery AS, Kehayias JJ, Dwyer JT, et al. Resistance training to counteract the catabolism of a low‐protein diet in patients with chronic renal insufficiency. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001;135(11):965‐76.

Castaneda 2004 {published data only}

Castaneda C, Gordon PL, Parker RC, Uhlin KL, Roubenoff R, Levey AS. Resistance training to reduce the malnutrition‐inflammation complex syndrome of chronic kidney disease. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 2004;43(4):607‐16.

Chandler 1998 {published and unpublished data}

Chandler JM, Duncan PW, Kochersberger G, Studenski S. Is lower extremity strength gain associated with improvement in physical performance and disability in frail, community‐dwelling elders?. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1998;79(1):24‐30.

Charette 1991 {published data only}

Charette S, McEvoy L, Pyka G. Muscle hypertrophy response to resistance training in older women. Journal of Applied Physiology 1991;70(5):1912‐6.

Chin A Paw 2006 {published data only}

Chin A Paw MJM, Van Poppel MNM, Twisk JWR, Van Mechelen W. Effects of resistance and all‐round, functional training on quality of life, vitality and depression of older adults living in long‐term care facilities: A 'randomized' controlled trial [ISRCTN87177281]. BMC Geriatrics 2004;4:1‐9.
Chin A Paw MJM, Van Poppel MNM, Twisk JWR, Van Mechelen W. Once a week not enough, twice a week not feasible? A randomised controlled exercise trial in long‐term care facilities [ISRCTN87177281]. Patient Education & Counseling 2006;63(1‐2):205‐14.
Chin A Paw MJM, Van Poppel MNM, Van Mechelen W. Effects of resistance and functional‐skills training on habitual activity and constipation among older adults living in long‐term care facilities: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatrics 2006;6:9.

Collier 1997 {unpublished data only}

Collier CD. Isotonic resistance training related functional fitness, physical self‐efficacy and depression in adults ages 65‐85 (thesis). Stillwater (OK): Oklahoma State University, 1997.

Damush 1999 {published data only}

Damush TM, Damush JG. The effects of strength training on strength and health‐related quality of life in older adult women. Gerontologist 1999;39(6):705‐10.

de Vos 2005 {published data only}

Orr R, de Vos NJ, Singh NA, Ross DA, Stavrinos TM, Fiatarone‐Singh MA. Power training improves balance in healthy older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2006;61(1):78‐85.
de Vos NJ, Singh NA, Ross DA, Stavrinos TM, Orr R, Fiatarone‐Singh MA. Optimal load for increasing muscle power during explosive resistance training in older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2005;60(5):638‐47.

de Vreede 2007 {published data only}

de Vreede PL, Samson MM, Van Meeteren NL, Van der Bom JG, Duursma SA, Verhaar HJ. Functional tasks exercise versus resistance exercise to improve daily function in older women: a feasibility study. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2004;85(12):1952‐61.
de Vreede PL, Samson MM, Van Meeteren NLU, Duursma SA, Verhaar HJJ. Functional‐task exercise versus resistance strength exercise to improve daily function in older women: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2005;53(1):2‐10.
de Vreede PL, Van Meeteren NL, Samson MM, Wittink HM, Duursma SA, Verhaar HJ. The effect of functional tasks exercise and resistance exercise on health‐related quality of life and physical activity: A randomized controlled trial. Gerontology 2007;53(1):12‐20.

DeBeliso 2005 {published data only}

DeBeliso M, Harris C, Spitzer‐Gibson T, Adams KJ. A comparison of periodised and fixed repetition training protocol on strength in older adults. Journal of Science & Medicine in Sport 2005;8(2):190‐9.

DiFrancisco 2007 {published data only}

DiFrancisco‐Donoghue J, Werner W, Douris P. Comparison of once‐weekly and twice‐weekly strength training in older adults. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2007;41(1):19‐22.

Donald 2000 {published and unpublished data}

Donald IP, Pitt K, Armstrong E, Shuttleworth H. Preventing falls on an elderly care rehabilitation ward. Clinical Rehabilitation 2000;14(2):178‐85.

Earles 2001 {published data only}

Earles DR, Judge JO, Gunnarsson OT. Velocity training induces power‐specific adaptations in highly functioning older adults. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2001;82(7):872‐8.

Ettinger 1997 {published data only}

Ettinger WH, Burns R, Messier SP, Applegate W, Rejeski WJ, Morgan T, et al. A randomized trial comparing aerobic exercise and resistance exercise with a health education program in older adults with knee osteoarthritis. The Fitness Arthritis and Seniors Trial (FAST). JAMA 1997;277(1):25‐31.
Mangani I, Cesari M, Kritchevsky SB, Maraldi C, Carter CS, Atkinson HH, et al. Physical exercise and comorbidity. Results from the Fitness and Arthritis in Seniors Trial (FAST). Aging‐Clinical & Experimental Research 2006;18(5):374‐80.
Messier SP, Royer TD, Craven TE, O'Toole ML, Burns R, Ettinger WH. Long‐term exercise and its effect on balance in older, osteoarthritic adults: results from the Fitness, Arthritis and Seniors Trial (FAST). Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2000;48(2):131‐8.
Penninx B, Rejeski WJ, Pandya J, Miller ME, Di Bari M, Applegate WB, et al. Exercise and depressive symptoms: A comparison of aerobic and resistance exercise effects on emotional and physical function in older persons with high and low depressive symptomatology. Journals of Gerontology Series B‐Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences 2002;57(2):124‐32.
Rejeski WJ, Ettinger WH, Martin K, Morgan T. Treating disability in knee osteoarthritis with exercise therapy: a central role for self‐efficacy and pain. Arthritis Care & Research 1998;11(2):94‐101.
Sevick MA, Bradham DD, Muender M, Chen GJ, Enarson C, Dailey M, et al. Cost‐effectiveness of aerobic and resistance exercise in seniors with knee osteoarthritis. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2000;32(9):1534‐40.

Fahlman 2002 {published data only}

Fahlman MM, Boardley D, Lambert CP, Flynn MG. Effects of endurance training and resistance training on plasma lipoprotein profiles in elderly women. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2002;57(2):B54‐60.

Fatouros 2002 {published data only}

Fatouros I, Taxildaris K, Tokmakidis S, Kalapotharakos VI, Aggelousis N, Athanasopoulos S, et al. The effects of strength training, cardiovascular training and their combination on flexibility of inactive older adults. International Journal of Sports Medicine 2002;23(2):112‐9.

Fatouros 2005 {published data only}

Fatouros IG, Kambas A, Katrabasas I, Leontsini D, Chatzinikolaou A, Jamurtas AZ, et al. Resistance training and detraining effects on flexibility performance in the elderly are intensity‐dependent. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 2006;20(3):634‐42.
Fatouros IG, Kambas A, Katrabasas I, Nikolaidis K, Chatzinikolaou A, Leontsini D, et al. Strength training and detraining effects on muscular strength, anaerobic power, and mobility of inactive older men are intensity dependent. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2005;39(10):776‐80.
Fatouros IG, Tournis S, Leontsini D, Jamurtas AZ, Sxina M, Thomakos P, et al. Leptin and adiponectin responses in overweight inactive elderly following resistance training and detraining are intensity related. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2005;90(11):5970‐7.

Fiatarone 1994 {published data only}

Fiatarone MA, O'Neill EF, Ryan ND, Clements KM, Solares GR, Nelson ME, et al. Exercise training and nutritional supplementation for physical frailty in very elderly people. New England Journal of Medicine 1994;330(25):1769‐75.
Singh MA, Ding W, Manfredi TJ, Solares GS, O'Neill EF, Clements KM. Insulin‐like growth factor I in skeletal muscle after weight‐lifting exercise in frail elders. American Journal of Physiology. Endocrinology and Metabolism 1999;277(40):E135‐43.

Fiatarone 1997 {published data only}

Fiatarone MA, O'Neill EF, Doyle RN, Clements K. Efficacy of home‐based resistance training in frail elders. Abstracts of the 16th Congress of the International Association of Gerontology. Bedford Park, South Australia: 1997 World Congress of Gerontology Inc, 1997:323 Abstract 985.

Fielding 2002 {published data only}

Fielding RA, LeBrasseur NK, Cuoco A, Bean J, Mizer K, Fiatarone Singh MA. High‐velocity resistance training increases skeletal muscle peak power in older women.[see comment]. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2002;50(4):655‐62.
Sayers SP, Bean J, Cuoco A, LeBrasseur NK, Jette A, Fielding RA. Changes in function and disability after resistance training: does velocity matter? A pilot study. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2003;82(8):605‐13.

Flynn 1999 {published data only}

Flynn MG, Fahlman M, Braun WA, Lambert CP, Bouillon LE, Brolinson PG, et al. Effects of resistance training on selected indexes of immune function in elderly women. Journal of Applied Physiology 1999;86(6):1905‐13.

Foley 2003 {published data only}

Foley A, Halbert J, Hewitt T, Crotty M. Does hydrotherapy improve strength and physical function in patients with osteoarthritis ‐ A randomised controlled trial comparing a gym based and a hydrotherapy based strengthening programme. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2003;62(12):1162‐7.

Frontera 2003 {published data only}

Frontera WR, Hughes VA, Krivickas LS, Kim SK, Foldvari M, Roubenoff R. Strength training in older women: early and late changes in whole muscle and single cells. Muscle & Nerve 2003;28(5):601‐8.

Galvao 2005 {published data only}

Galvao DA, Taaffe DR. Resistance exercise dosage in older adults: Single‐ versus multiset effects on physical performance and body composition. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2005;53(12):2090‐7.

Hagerman 2000 {published data only}

Hagerman FC, Walsh SJ, Staron RS, Hikida RS, Gilders RM, Murray TF, et al. Effects of high‐intensity resistance strength training on untrained older men 1. Strength, cardiovascular and metabolic responses. Journals of Gerontology.Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2000;55A(7):B336‐46.

Harris 2004 {published data only}

Harris C, DeBeliso MA, Spitzer‐Gibson TA, Adams KJ. The effect of resistance‐training intensity on strength‐gain response in the older adult. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 2004;18(4):833‐8.

Haykowsky 2000 {published data only}

Haykowsky M, Humen D, Teo K, Quinney A, Souster M, Bell G, et al. Effects of 16 weeks of resistance training on left ventricular morphology and systolic function in healthy men >60 years of age. American Journal of Cardiology 2000;85(8):1002‐6.

Haykowsky 2005 {published data only}

Haykowsky M, McGavock J, Vonder Muhll I, Koller M, Mandic S, Welsh R, et al. Effect of exercise training on peak aerobic power, left ventricular morphology, and muscle strength in healthy older women. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2005;60(3):307‐11.

Hennessey 2001 {published data only}

Hennessey JV, Chromiak JA, DellaVentura S, Reinert SE, Puhl J, Kiel DP, et al. Growth hormone administration and exercise effects on muscle fibre type and diameter in moderately frail older people. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2001;49(7):852‐8.

Hepple 1997 {published data only}

Hepple RT, Mackinnon SL, Goodman MJ, Thomas SG, Plyley MJ. Resistance and aerobic training in older men: effects on VO2 peak and the capillary supply to skeletal muscle. Journal of Applied Physiology 1997;82(4):1305‐10.

Hiatt 1994 {published data only}

Hiatt WR, Wolfel EE, Meier RH, Regensteiner JG. Superiority of treadmill walking exercise versus strength training for patients with peripheral arterial disease. Circulation 1994;90(4):1866‐74.
Regensteiner JG, Steiner JF, Hiatt WR. Exercise training improves functional status in patients with peripheral arterial disease. Journal of Vascular Surgery 1996;23(1):104‐15.

Hortobagyi 2001 {published data only}

Hortobagyi T, Tunnel D, Moody J, Beam S, DeVita P. Low‐ or high‐intensity strength training partially restores impaired quadriceps force accuracy and steadiness in aged adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2001;56(1):B38‐47.

Hruda 2003 {published data only}

Hruda KV, Hicks AL, McCartney N. Training for muscle power in older adults: effects on functional abilities. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology 2003;28(2):178‐89.

Hunter 2001 {published data only}

Hunter GR, Wetzstein CA, McLafferty CL, Zuckerman PA, Landers KA, Bamman MM. High‐resistance versus variable‐resistance training in older adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2001;33(10):1759‐64.

Izquierdo 2004 {published data only}

Izquierdo M, Ibanez J, Hakkinen K, Kraemer WJ, Larrion JL, Gorostiaga EM. Once weekly combined resistance and cardiovascular training in healthy older men. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2004;36(3):435‐43.

Jette 1996 {published data only}

Jette AM, Harris BA, Sleeper L, Lachman ME, Heislein D, Giorgetti M, et al. A home‐based exercise program for nondisabled older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1996;44(6):644‐9.

Jette 1999 {published and unpublished data}

Dancewicz TM, Krebs DE, McGibbon CA. Lower‐limb extensor power and lifting characteristics in disabled elders. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 2003;40(4):337‐47.
Jette AM, Lachman M, Giorgetti MM, Assman SF, Harris BA, Levenson C, et al. Exercise ‐ it's never too late: The strong‐for‐life program. American Journal of Public Health 1999;89(1):66‐72.
Krebs DE, Jette AM, Assmann SF. Moderate exercise improves gait stability in disabled elders. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 1998;79(12):1489‐95.

Jones 1994 {published data only}

Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Benedict J, Williamson P. Effects of a resistance training program on leg strength and muscular endurance in older women. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports 1995;5(6):329‐41.

Jubrias 2001 {published data only}

Jubrias SA, Esselman PC, Price LB, Cress ME, Conley KE. Large energetic adaptations of elderly muscle to resistance and endurance training. Journal of Applied Physiology 2001;90(5):1663‐70.

Judge 1994 {published data only}

Judge JO, Whipple RH, Wolfson LI. Effects of resistance and balance exercises on isokinetic strength in older persons. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1994;42(9):937‐46.
Wolfson L, Whipple R, Derby C, Judge J, King M, Amerman P, et al. Balance and strength training in older adults: intervention gains and tai chi maintenance. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1996;44(5):498‐506.

Kalapotharakos 2005 {published data only}

Kalapotharakos VI, Michalopoulos M, Tokmakidis SP, Godolias G, Gourgoulis V. Effects of a heavy and a moderate resistance training on functional performance in older adults. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 2005;19(3):652‐7.
Kalapotharakos VI, Michalopoulou M, Godolias G, Tokmakidis SP, Malliou PV, Gourgoulis V. The effects of high‐ and moderate‐resistance training on muscle function in the elderly. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity 2004;12(2):131‐43.
Kalapotharakos VI, Michalopoulou M, Tokmakidis S, Godolias G, Strimpakos N, Karteroliotis K. Effects of a resistance exercise programme on the performance of inactive older adults. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation 2004;11(7):318‐23.
Kalapotharakos VI, Tokmakidis SP, Smilios I, Michalopoulos M, Gliatis J, Godolias G. Resistance training in older women: effect on vertical jump and functional performance. Journal of Sports Medicine & Physical Fitness 2005;45(4):570‐5.

Kallinen 2002 {published data only}

Kallinen M, Sipila S, Alen M, Suominen H. Improving cardiovascular fitness by strength or endurance training in women aged 76‐78 years. A population‐based, randomized controlled trial. Age and Ageing 2002;31(4):247‐54.

Katznelson 2006 {published data only}

Katznelson L, Robinson MW, Coyle CL, Lee H, Farrell CE. Effects of modest testosterone supplementation and exercise for 12 weeks on body composition and quality of life in elderly men. European Journal of Endocrinology 2006;155(6):867‐75.

Kongsgaard 2004 {published data only}

Kongsgaard M, Backer V, Jorgensen K, Kjaer M, Beyer N. Heavy resistance training increases muscle size, strength and physical function in elderly male COPD‐patients ‐ a pilot study. Respiratory Medicine 2004;98(10):1000‐7.

Krebs 2007 {published data only}

Krebs DE, Scarborough DM, McGibbon CA. Functional vs. strength training in disabled elderly outpatients. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2007;86(2):93‐103.

Lamoureux 2003 {published data only}

Lamoureux E, Sparrow WA, Murphy A, Newton RU. The effects of improved strength on obstacle negotiation in community‐living older adults. Gait & Posture 2003;17(3):273‐83.
Lamoureux EL, Murphy A, Sparrow A, Newton RU. The effects of progressive resistance training on obstructed‐gait tasks in community‐living older adults. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity 2003;11(1):98‐110.

Latham 2001 {published and unpublished data}

Latham NK, Stretton CS, Ronald M. Progressive resistance strength training in hospitalised older people: a preliminary investigation. New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy 2001;29(2):41‐8.

Latham 2003 {published data only}

Latham NK, Anderson CS, Lee A, Bennett D, Moseley AM, Cameron ID. A randomized, controlled trial of quadriceps resistance exercise and vitamin D in frail older people: the Frailty Interventions Trial in Elderly Subjects (FITNESS). Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2003;51(3):291‐9.

Liu‐Ambrose 2005 {published data only}

Liu‐Ambrose T, Khan KM, Eng JJ, Janssen PA, Lord SR, McKay HA. Resistance and agility training reduce fall risk in women aged 75 to 85 with low bone mass: a 6‐month randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2004;52(5):657‐65.
Liu‐Ambrose T, Khan KM, Eng JJ, Lord SR, McKay HA. Balance confidence improves with resistance or agility training: Increase is not correlated with objective changes in fall risk and physical abilities. Gerontology 2004;50(6):373‐82.
Liu‐Ambrose TYL, Khan KM, Eng JJ, Lord SR, Lentle B, McKay HA. Both resistance and agility training reduce back pain and improve health‐related quality of life in older women with low bone mass. Osteoporosis International 2005;16(11):1321‐9.
Liu‐Ambrose TYL. Studies of fall risk and bone morphology in older women with low bone mass [dissertation]. British Columbia (Canada): The University of British Columbia, 2004.

Macaluso 2003 {published data only}

Macaluso A, Young A, Gibb KS, Rowe DA, De Vito G. Cycling as a novel approach to resistance training increases muscle strength, power, and selected functional abilities in healthy older women. Journal of Applied Physiology 2003;95(6):2544‐53.

Madden 2006 {published data only}

Madden KM, Levy WC, Stratton JK. Exercise training and heart rate variability in older adult female subjects. Clinical & Investigative Medicine ‐ Medecine Clinique et Experimentale 2006;29(1):20‐8.

Maiorana 1997 {published data only}

Maiorana AJ, Briffa TG, Goodman C, Hung J. A controlled trial of circuit weight training on aerobic capacity and myocardial oxygen demand in men after coronary artery bypass surgery. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation 1997;17(4):239‐47.

Malliou 2003 {published data only}

Malliou P, Fatouros I, Beneka A, Gioftsidou A, Zissi V, Godolias G, et al. Different training programs for improving muscular performance in healthy inactive elderly. Isokinetics and Exercise Science 2003;11(4):189‐95.

Mangione 2005 {published data only}

Mangione KK, Craik RL, Tomlinson SS, Palombaro KM. Can elderly patients who have had a hip fracture perform moderate‐ to high‐intensity exercise at home?. Physical Therapy 2005;85(8):727‐39.

Manini 2005 {published data only}

Manini TM, Clark BC, Tracy BL, Burke J, Ploutz‐Snyder L. Resistance and functional training reduces knee extensor position fluctuations in functionally limited older adults. European Journal of Applied Physiology 2005;95(5‐6):436‐46.

Maurer 1999 {published data only}

Maurer BT, Stern AG, Kinossian B, Cook KD, Schumacher HR. Osteoarthritis of the knee: isokinetic quadriceps exercise versus an educational intervention. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1999;80(10):1293‐9.

McCartney 1995 {published data only}

McCartney N, Hicks A, Martin J, Webber C. A longitudinal trial of weight training in the elderly: continued improvements in year 2. Journals of Gerontology.Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 1996;51(6):B425‐33.
McCartney N, Hicks AL, Martin J, Webber CE. Long‐term resistance training in elderly: Effects on dynamic strength, exercise capacity, muscle and bone. Journals of Gerontology.Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 1995;50(2):B97‐104.

McGuigan 2001 {published data only}

McGuigan MR, Bronks R, Newton RU, Sharman MJ, Graham JC, Cody DV, et al. Resistance training in patients with peripheral arterial disease: effects on myosin isoforms, fiber type distribution and capillary supply to skeletal muscle. Journals of Gerontology.Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2001;56(7):B302‐10.

McMurdo 1995 {published data only}

McMurdo ME, Johnstone R. A randomized controlled trial of a home exercise programme for elderly people with poor mobility. Age and Ageing 1995;24(5):425‐8.

Mihalko 1996 {published data only}

Mihalko SL, McAuley E. Strength training effects on subjective well‐being and physical function in the elderly. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity 1996;4(1):56‐68.

Mikesky 2006 {published data only}

Mikesky AE, Mazzuca SA, Brandt KD, Perkins SM, Damush T, Lane KA. Effects of strength training on the incidence and progression of knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism ‐ Arthritis Care and Research 2006;55(5):690‐9.

Miller 2006 {published data only}

Miller MD, Crotty M, Whitehead C, Bannerman E, Daniels LA. Nutritional supplementation and resistance training in nutritionally at risk older adults following lower limb fracture: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation 2006;20(4):311‐23.

Miszko 2003 {published data only}

Miszko TA, Cress ME, Slade JM, Covey CJ, Agrawal SK, Doerr CE. Effect of strength and power training on physical function in community‐dwelling older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2003;58(2):171‐5.

Moreland 2001 {unpublished data only}

Moreland J. Personal Communication2001.
Moreland JD, Goldsmith CH, Huijbregts MP, Anderson RE, Prentice DM, Brunton KB, et al. Progressive resistance strengthening exercises after stroke: a single‐blind randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2003;84(10):1433‐40.

Nelson 1994 {published data only}

Morganti CM, Nelson ME, Fiatarone MA, Dallal GE, Economos CD, Crawford BM, et al. Strength improvements with 1 yr of progressive resistance training in older women. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 1995;27(6):906‐12.
Nelson ME, Fiatarone MA, Morganti CM, Trice I, Greenberg RA, Evans WJ. Effects of high‐intensity strength training on multiple risk factors for osteoporotic fractures. JAMA 1994;272(24):1909‐14.

Newnham 1995 {unpublished data only}

Newnham J. The effects of a strengthening program on muscle function and mobility skills in an elderly instituionalised population [thesis]. Montreal (Quebec): McGill University, 1995.

Nichols 1993 {published data only}

Nichols JF, Omizo DK, Peterson KK, Nelson KP. Efficacy of heavy‐resistance training for active women over sixty: Muscular strength, body composition and program adherence. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1993;41(3):205‐10.

Ouellette 2004 {published data only}

Ouellette MM, LeBrasseur NK, Bean JF, Phillips E, Stein J, Frontera WR, et al. High‐intensity resistance training improves muscle strength, self‐reported function, and disability in long‐term stroke survivors. Stroke 2004;35(6):1404‐9.

Parkhouse 2000 {published data only}

Parkhouse WS, Coupland DC, Li C, Vanderhoek KJ. IGF‐1 bioavailabililty is increased by resistance training in older women with low bone mineral density. Mechanisms of Ageing and Development 2000;113(2):75‐83.

Pollock 1991 {published data only}

Hagberg JM, Graves JE, Limacher M, Woods DR, Leggett SH, Cononie C, et al. Cardiovascular responses of 70‐ to 79‐year‐old mean and women to exercise training. Journal of Applied Physiology 1989;66(6):2589‐94.
Panton LB, Graves JE, Pollock ML, Hagberg JM, Chen W. Effect of aerobic and resistance training on fractionated reaction time and speed of movement. Journal of Gerontology 1990;45(1):M26‐31.
Pollock ML, Carroll JF, Graves JE, Leggett SH, Braith RW, Limacher M, et al. Injuries and adherence to walk/jog and resistance training programs in the elderly. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 1991;23(10):1194‐200.

Pu 2001 {published data only}

Pu CT, Johnson MT, Forman DE, Hausdorff JM, Roubenoff R, Foldvari M, et al. Randomized trial of progressive resistance training to counteract the myopathy of chronic heart failure. Journal of Applied Physiology 2001;90(6):2341‐50.

Rall 1996 {published data only}

Rall LC, Meydani SN, Kehayias JJ, Dawson Hughes B, Roubenoff R. The effect of progressive resistance training in rheumatoid arthritis. Increased strength without changes in energy balance or body composition. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1996;39(3):415‐26.
Rall LC, Rosen CJ, Dolnikowski G, Hartman WJ, Lundgren N, Abad LW, et al. Protein metabolism in rheumatoid arthritis and aging. Effects of muscle strength training and tumor necrosis factor alpha. Arthritis and Rheumatism 1996;39(7):1115‐24.
Rall LC, Roubenoff R, Cannon JG, Abad LW, Dinarello CA, Meydani SN. Effects of progressive resistance training on immune response in aging and chronic inflammation. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 1996;28(11):1356‐65.

Reeves 2004 {published data only}

Reeves ND, Narici MV, Maganaris CN. In vivo human muscle structure and function: adaptations to resistance training in old age. Experimental Physiology 2004;89(6):675‐89.
Reeves ND, Narici MV, Maganaris CN. Strength training alters the viscoelastic properties of tendons in elderly humans. Muscle & Nerve 2003;28(1):74‐81.

Rhodes 2000 {published data only}

Rhodes EC, Martin AD, Taunton JE, Donnely M, Warren J, Elliot J. Effects of one year of resistance training on the relation between muscular strength and bone density in elderly women. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2000;34(1):18‐22.

Schilke 1996 {published data only}

Schilke JM, Johnson GO, Housh TJ, O'Dell JR. Effects of muscle‐strength training on the functional status of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee joint. Nursing Research 1996;45(2):68‐72.

Schlicht 1999 {published and unpublished data}

Schlicht J, Camaione DN, Owen SV. Effect of intense strength training on standing balance, walking speed and sit‐to‐stand performance in older adults. Journals of Gerontology.Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2001;56(5):M281‐6.
Schlicht, J. Effect of intense strength training on walking speed, standing balance and sit‐to‐stand performance in older adults [thesis]. Storrs (CT): Univ. of Connecticut, 1999.

Segal 2003 {published data only}

Segal RJ, Reid RD, Courneya KS, Malone SC, Parliament MB, Scott CG, et al. Resistance exercise in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2003;21(9):1653‐9.

Selig 2004 {published data only}

Selig SE, Carey MF, Menzies DG, Patterson J, Geerling RH, Williams AD, et al. Moderate‐intensity resistance exercise training in patients with chronic heart failure improves strength, endurance, heart rate variability, and forearm blood flow. Journal of Cardiac Failure 2004;10(1):21‐30.

Seynnes 2004 {published data only}

Seynnes O, Fiatarone Singh MA, Hue O, Pras P, Legros P, Bernard PL. Physiological and functional responses to low‐moderate versus high‐intensity progressive resistance training in frail elders. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2004;59(5):503‐9.

Simoneau 2006 {published data only}

Simoneau E, Martin A, Porter MM, Van Hoecke J. Strength training in old age: adaptation of antagonist muscles at the ankle joint. Muscle & Nerve 2006;33(4):546‐55.

Simons 2006 {published data only}

Simons R, Andel R. The effects of resistance training and walking on functional fitness in advanced old age. Journal of Aging & Health 2006;18(1):91‐105.

Simpson 1992 {published data only}

Simpson K, Killian K, McCartney N, Lloyd DG, Jones NL. Randomised controlled trial of weightlifting exercise in patients with chronic airflow limitation. Thorax 1992;47(2):70‐5.

Sims 2006 {published data only}

Sims J, Hill K, Davidson S, Gunn J, Huang N. Exploring the feasibility of a community‐based strength training program for older people with depressive symptoms and its impact on depressive symptoms. BMC Geriatrics 2006;6:18.

Singh 1997 {published data only}

Singh NA, Clements KM, Fiatarone MA. A randomised trial of progressive resistance training in depressed elders. Journals of Gerontology.Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 1997;52(1):M27‐35.
Singh NA, Clements KM, Fiatarone Singh MA. The efficacy of exercise as a long‐term antidepressant in elderly subjects: a randomized controlled trial. Journals of Gerontology. Series A‐Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 2001;56(8):497‐504.

Singh 2005 {published data only}

Singh NA, Stavrinos TM, Scarbek Y, Galambos G, Liber C, Fiatarone Singh MA. A randomized controlled trial of high versus low intensity weight training versus general practitioner care for clinical depression in older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2005;60(6):768‐76.

Sipila 1996 {published data only}

Siplia S, Multanen J, Kallinen M, Era P, Suominen H. Effects of strength and endurance training on isometric muscle strength and walking speed in elderly women. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 1996;156(4):457‐64.

Skelton 1995 {published and unpublished data}

Skelton DA, Young A, Greig CA, Malbut KE. Effects of resistance training on strength, power, and functional abilities of women aged 75 and older. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1995;43(10):1081‐7.

Skelton 1996 {published and unpublished data}

Skelton DA, McLaughlin AW. Training functional ability in old age. Physiotherapy 1996;82(3):159‐67.

Sousa 2005 {published data only}

Sousa N, Sampaio J. Effects of progressive strength training on the performance of the Functional Reach Test and the Timed Get‐Up‐and‐Go Test in an elderly population from the rural north of Portugal. American Journal of Human Biology 2005;17(6):746‐51.

Suetta 2004 {published data only}

Suetta C, Aagaard P, Rosted A, Jakobsen AK, Duus B, Kjaer M, et al. Training‐induced changes in muscle CSA, muscle strength, EMG, and rate of force development in elderly subjects after long‐term unilateral disuse. Journal of Applied Physiology 2004;97(5):1954‐61.
Suetta C, Magnusson SP, Rosted A, Aagaard P, Jakobsen AK, Larsen LH, et al. Resistance training in the early postoperative phase reduces hospitalization and leads to muscle hypertrophy in elderly hip surgery patients ‐ A controlled, randomized study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2004;52(12):2016‐22.

Sullivan 2005 {published data only}

Sullivan DH, Roberson PK, Johnson LE, Bishara O, Evans WJ, Smith ES, et al. Effects of muscle strength training and testosterone in frail elderly males. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2005;37(10):1664‐72.
Sullivan DH, Roberson PK, Smith ES, Price JA, Bopp MM. Effects of muscle strength training and megestrol acetate on strength, muscle mass, and function in frail older people. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2007;55(1):20‐8.

Symons 2005 {published data only}

Symons TB, Vandervoort AA, Rice CL, Overend TJ, Marsh GD. Effects of maximal isometric and isokinetic resistance training on strength and functional mobility in older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2005;60(6):777‐81.

Taaffe 1996 {published data only}

Pruitt LA, Taaffe DR, Marcus R. Effects of a one‐year high‐intensity versus low‐intensity resistance training program on bone mineral density in older women. Journal of Bone & Mineral Research 1995;10(11):1788‐95.
Taaffe DR, Pruitt L, Pyka G, Guido D, Marcus R. Comparative effects of high‐ and low‐ intensity resistance training on thigh muscle strength, fiber area, and tissue composition in elderly women. Clinical Physiology 1996;16(4):381‐92.
Taaffe DR, Pruitt L, Reim J, Butterfield G, Marcus R. Effect of sustained resistance training on basal metabolic rate in older women. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1995;43(5):465‐71.

Taaffe 1999 {published data only}

Taaffe DR, Duret C, Wheeler S, Marcus R. Once‐weekly resistance exercise improves strength and neuromuscular performance in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1999;47(10):1208‐14.

Topp 1993 {published data only}

Mikesky AE, Topp R, Wigglesworth JK, Harsha DM, Edwards JE. Efficacy of a home‐based training program for older adults using elastic tubing. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology 1994;69(4):316‐20.
Topp R, Mikesky A, Wigglesworth J, Holt W, Edwards JE. The effect of a 12‐week dynamic resistance strength training on gait velocity and balance in older adults. Gerontologist 1993;33(4):501‐6.

Topp 1996 {published data only}

Topp R, Mikesky A, Dayhoff NE, Holt W. Effect of resistance training on strength, postural control and gait velocity in older adults. Clinical Nursing Research 1996;5(4):407‐21.

Topp 2002 {published data only}

Topp R, Woolley S, Hornyak J, Khuder S, Kahaleh B. The effect of dynamic versus isometric resistance training on pain and functioning among adults with osteoarthritis of the knee. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2002;83(9):1187‐95.

Topp 2005 {published data only}

Topp R, Boardley D, Morgan AL, Fahlman M, McNevin N. Exercise and functional tasks among adults who are functionally limited. Western Journal of Nursing Research 2005;27(3):252‐70.

Tracy 2004 {published data only}

Tracy BL, Byrnes WC, Enoka RM. Strength training reduces force fluctuations during anisometric contractions of the quadriceps femoris muscles in old adults. Journal of Applied Physiology 2004;96(4):1530‐40.

Tsutsumi 1997 {published and unpublished data}

Tsutsumi T, Don BM, Zaichkowsky LD, Delizonna LL. Physical fitness and psychological benefits of strength training in community dwelling older adults. Applied Human Science 1997;16(6):257‐66.
Tsutsumi T, Don BM, Zaichkowsky LD, Takenaka K, Oka K, Ohno T. Comparison of high and moderate intensity of strength training on mood and anxiety in older adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1998;87(3 Pt 1):1003‐11.
Tsutsumi, T. The effects of strength training on mood, self‐efficacy, cardiovascular reactivity and quality of life in older adults [thesis]. Boston (MA): Boston University, 1997.

Tyni‐Lenne 2001 {published data only}

Tyni‐Lenne R, Dencker K, Gordon A, Jansson E, Sylven C. Comprehensive local muscle training increases aerobic working capacity and quality of life and decreases neurohormonal activation in patients with chronic heart failure. European Journal of Heart Failure 2001;3(1):47‐52.

Vincent 2002 {published data only}

Vincent KR, Braith BW. Resistance exercise and bone turnover in elderly men and women. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2002;34(1):17‐23.
Vincent KR, Braith RW, Bottiglieri T, Vincent HK, Lowenthal DT. Homocysteine and lipoprotein levels following resistance training in older adults. Preventive Cardiology 2003;6(4):197‐203.
Vincent KR, Braith RW, Feldman RA, Kallas HE, Lowenthal DT. Improved cardiorespiratory endurance following 6 months of resistance exercise in elderly men and women. Archives of Internal Medicine 2002;162(6):673‐8.
Vincent KR, Braith RW, Feldman RA, Magyari PM, Cutler RB, Persin SA, et al. Resistance exercise and physical performance in adults aged 60 to 83. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2002;50(6):1100‐7.

Westhoff 2000 {published data only}

Westhoff MH, Stemmerik L, Boshuizen HC. Effects of a low‐intensity strength‐training program on knee‐extensor strength and functional ability of frail older people. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity 2000;8(4):325‐42.

Wieser 2007 {published data only}

Wieser M, Haber P. The effects of systematic resistance training in the elderly. International Journal of Sports Medicine 2007;28(1):59‐65.

Wood 2001 {published data only}

Wood RH, Reyes R, Welsch MA, Favaloro‐Sabatier J, Sabatier M, Lee CM, et al. Concurrent cardiovascular and resistance training in healthy older adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2001;33(10):1751‐8.

Adami 1999 {published data only}

Adami S, Gattie D, Braga V, Bianchini D, Rossini M. Site‐specific effects of strength training on bone structure and geometry of ultradistal radius in postmenopausal women. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 1999;14(1):120‐4.

Adams 2001 {published data only}

Adams KJ, Swank AM, Berning JM, Sevene‐Adams PG, Barnard KL, et al. Progressive strength training in sedentary older African American women. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2001;33(9):1567‐76.

Agre 1988 {published data only}

Agre JC, Pierce LE, Raab DM, McAdams M, Smith EL. Light resistance and stretching exercise in elderly women: effect upon strength. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1988;69(4):273‐6.
Raab DM, Agre JC, McAdam M, Smith EL. Light resistance and stretching exercise in elderly women: effect upon flexibility. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1988;69(4):268‐72.

Alexander 2003 {published data only}

Alexander JL. Effect of strength training on functional fitness in older chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients [dissertation]. Arizona State University, 2003.

Aniansson 1981 {published data only}

Aniansson A, Gustafsson E. Physical training in elderly men with special reference to quadriceps muscle strength and morphology. Clinical Physiology 1981;1(1):87‐98.

Annesi 2004 {published data only}

Annesi JJ, Gann S, Westcott WW, Annesi JJ, Gann S, Westcott WW. Preliminary evaluation of a 10‐wk. resistance and cardiovascular exercise protocol on physiological and psychological measures for a sample of older women. Perceptual & Motor Skills 2004;98(1):163‐70.

Ardman 1998 {published data only}

Ardman O. The effects of strength training on strength, mobility and balance in two groups of institutionalised elderly subjects [dissertation]. Montreal (Quebec): McGill University, 1998.

Ballard 2004 {published data only}

Ballard JE, McFarland C, Wallace LS, Holiday DB, Roberson G. The effect of 15 weeks of exercise on balance, leg strength, and reduction in falls in 40 women aged 65 to 89 years. Journal of the American Medical Womens Association 2004;59(4):255‐61.

Barbosa 2002 {published data only}

Barbosa AR, Santarem JM, Filho WJ, Marucci MFN. Effects of resistance training on the sit‐and‐reach test in elderly women. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 2002;16(1):14‐8.

Baum 2003b {published data only}

Baum K, Ruether T, Essfeld D. Reduction of blood pressure response during strength training through intermittent muscle relaxations. International Journal of Sports Medicine 2003;24(6):441‐5.

Bean 2002 {published data only}

Bean J, Herman S, Kiely DK, Callahan D, Mizer K, Frontera WR, et al. Weighted stair climbing in mobility‐limited older people: a pilot study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2002;50(4):663‐70.

Bellew 2003 {published data only}

Bellew JW, Yates JW, Gater DR. The initial effects of low‐volume strength training on balance in untrained older men and women. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 2003;17(1):121‐8.

Beniamini 1997 {published data only}

Beniamini Y, Rubenstein JJ, Zaichkowsky LD, Leonard D, Crim MC. Effects of high‐intensity strength training on quality‐of‐life parameters in cardiac rehabilitation patients. American Journal of Cardiology 1997;80(7):841‐6.

Beniamini 1999 {published data only}

Beniamini Y, Rubenstein JJ, Faigehbaum AD, Lichenstein AH, Crim MC. High‐intensity strength training of patients enrolled in an outpatient cardiac rehabilitation program. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation 1999;19(1):8‐17.

Berg 1998 {published data only}

Berg WP, Lapp BA. The effect of a "practical" resistance training intervention on mobility in independent, community‐dwelling older adults. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity 1998;6(1):18‐35.

Bernard 1999 {published data only}

Bernard S, Whittom F, Leblanc P, Jobin J, Belleau R, Berube C, et al. Aerobic and strength training in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. American Journal of Respiratory Care and Critical Care Medicine 1999;159(3):896‐901.

Bilodeau 2000 {published data only}

Bilodeau M, Keen DA, Sweeney PJ, Shields RW, Enoka RM. Strength training can improve steadiness in persons with essential tremor. Muscle and Nerve 2000;23:771‐8.

Binda 2003 {published data only}

Binda SM, Culham EG, Brouwer B, Binda SM, Culham EG, Brouwer B. Balance, muscle strength, and fear of falling in older adults. Experimental Aging Research 2003;29(2):205‐19.

Binder 2002 {published data only}

Binder EF, Schechtman KB, Ehsani AA, Steger‐May K, Brown M, Sinacore DR, et al. Effects of exercise training on frailty in community‐dwelling older adults: results of a randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2002;50(12):1921‐8.
Binder EF, Yarasheski KE, Steger‐May K, Sinacore DR, Brown M, Schechtman KB, et al. Effects of progressive resistance training on body composition in frail older adults: Results of a randomized, controlled trial. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2005;60(11):1425‐31.

Boardley 2007 {published data only}

Boardley D, Fahlman M, Topp R, Morgan AL, McNevin N. The impact of exercise training on blood lipids in older adults. American Journal of Geriatric Cardiology 2007;16(1):30‐5.

Braith 2005 {published data only}

Braith RW, Magyari PM, Pierce GL, Edwards DG, Hill JA, White LJ, et al. Effect of resistance exercise on skeletal muscle myopathy in heart transplant recipients. American Journal of Cardiology 2005;95(10):1192‐8.

Brandon 2003b {published data only}

Brandon LJ, Gaasch DA, Boyette LW, Lloyd AM. Effects of long‐term resistive training on mobility and strength in older adults with diabetes. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2003;58(8):740‐5.

Brandon 2004 {published data only}

Brandon LJ, Boyette LW, Lloyd A, Gaasch DA. Resistive training and long‐term function in older adults. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity 2004;12(1):10‐28.

Brill 1998 {published data only}

Brill PA, Matthews M, Mason J, Davis D, Mustafa T, Macera C. Improving functional performance through a group‐based free weight strength training program in residents of two assisted living communities. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics 1998;15(3):57‐69.
Brill PA, Probst JC, Greenhouse DL, Schell B, Macera CA. Clinical feasibility of a free‐weight strength‐training program for older adults. Journal of the American Board of Family Practice 1998;11(6):445‐51.

Brose 2003 {published data only}

Brose A, Parise G, Tarnopolsky MA. Creatine supplementation enhances isometric strength and body composition improvements following strength exercise training in older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2003;58(1):11‐9.

Brown 1990 {published data only}

Brown AB, McCartney N, Sale DG. Positive adaptations to weight‐lifting in the elderly. Journal of Applied Physiology 1990;69(5):1725‐33.

Brown 1991 {published data only}

Brown M, Holloszy JO. Effects of a low intensity exercise program on selected physical performance characteristics of 60‐ to 70‐ year olds. Aging (Milan, Italy) 1991;3(2):129‐39.

Brown 2000 {published data only}

Brown M, Sinacore DR, Ehsani AA, Binder EF, Holloszy JO, Kohrt WM. Low‐intensity exercise as a modifier of physical frailty in older adults. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2000;81(7):960‐5.

Bunout 2001 {published data only}

Bunout B, Barrera G, de la Maza P, Avendano M, Gattas V, Petermann M, et al. Effects of nutritional supplementation and resistance training on muscle strength in free living elders. Results of one year follow. Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging 2004;8(2):68‐75.
Bunout D, Barrera G, Avendano M, de la Maza P, Gattas V, Leiva L, et al. Results of a community‐based weight‐bearing resistance training programme for healthy Chilean elderly subjects. Age and Ageing 2005;34(1):80‐3.
Bunout D, Barrera G, Leiva L, Gattas V, de la Maza MP, Avendano M, et al. Effects of vitamin D supplementation and exercise training on physical performance in Chilean vitamin D deficient elderly subjects. Experimental Gerontology 2006;41(8):746‐52.
Bunout D, Barrera G, de la Maza P, Avendano M, Gattas V, Petermann M, et al. The impact of nutritional supplementation and resistance training on the health and function of free‐living Chilean elders: results of 18 months of follow‐up. Journal of Nutrition 2001;131(9):2441S‐6S.

Campbell 2002 {published data only}

Campbell WW, Joseph LJO, Anderson RA, Davey SL, Hinton J, Evans WJ. Effects of resistive training and chromium picolinate on body composition and skeletal muscle size in older women. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism 2002;12(2):125‐35. [MEDLINE: Wrong outcomes and involved medication, not RCT]

Campbell 2004 {published data only}

Campbell WW, Joseph LJO, Ostlund Jr RE, Anderson RA, Farrell PA, Evans WJ. Resistive training and chromium picolinate: Effects on inositols and liver and kidney functions in older adults. International Journal of Sport Nutrition & Exercise Metabolism 2004;14(4):430‐42.

Cancela 2003 {published data only}

Cancela Carral JM, Romo Perez V, Camina Fernandez F. Effect of strength program on a 65 years old elderly woman [Spanish]. Gerokomos 2003;14(2):80‐9.

Candow 2004 {published data only}

Candow DG, Chilibeck PD, Chad KE, Chrusch MJ, Shawn Davison K, Burke DG. Effect of ceasing creatine supplementation while maintaining resistance training in older men. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity 2004;12(3):219‐31.

Capodaglio 2002 {published data only}

Capodaglio P, Facioli M, Burroni E, Giordano A, Ferri A, Scaglioni G. Effectiveness of a home‐based strengthening program for elderly males in Italy. A preliminary study. Aging‐Clinical & Experimental Research 2002;14(1):28‐34.

Carter 2002 {published data only}

Carter ND, Khan KM, McKay HA, Petit MA, Waterman C, Heinonen A, et al. Community‐based exercise program reduces risk factors for falls in 65‐ to 75‐year‐old women with osteoporosis: randomized controlled trial. CMAJ 2002;167(9):997‐1004.

Carter 2005 {published data only}

Carter JM, Bemben DA, Knehans AW, Bemben MG, Witten MS. Does nutritional supplementation influence adaptability of muscle to resistance training in men aged 48 to 72 years. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy 2005;28(2):40‐7.

Carvalho 2002 {published data only}

Carvalho J, Oliveira J, Magalhaes J, Ascensao A, Cabri J, Soares JMC. The influence of initial strength levels on isokinetic torque after training in elderly adults. European College of Sport Science, Proceedings of the 7th annual congress of the European College of Sport Science; 2002 July 24‐28; Athens Greece. Pashalidis Medical Publisher, 2002:513.

Cauza 2005 {published data only}

Cauza E, Hanusch‐Enserer U, Strasser B, Kostner K, Dunky A, Haber P. Strength and endurance training lead to different post exercise glucose profiles in diabetic participants using a continuous subcutaneous glucose monitoring system. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 2005;35(12):745‐51.

Cauza 2005b {published data only}

Cauza E, Hanusch‐Enserer U, Strasser B, Ludvik B, Metz‐Schimmerl S, Pacini G, et al. The relative benefits of endurance and strength training on the metabolic factors and muscle function of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2005;86(8):1527‐33.

Chaloupka 2000 {published data only}

Chaloupka V, Elbl L, Nehyba S. Strength training in patients after myocardial infarct [Silovy trenink u nemocnych po infarktu myokardu]. Vnitrni Lekarstvi 2000;46(12):829‐34.

Chetlin 2004 {published data only}

Chetlin RD, Gutmann L, Tarnopolsky M, Ullrich IH, Yeater RA. Resistance training effectiveness in patients with Charcot‐Marie‐Tooth disease: recommendations for exercise prescription. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2004;85(8):1217‐23.

Chiba 2006 {published data only}

Chiba A. Positive effects of resistance training on QOL in the frail elderly. Japanese Journal of Public Health 2006;53(11):851‐8.

Chien 2005 {published data only}

Chien MY, Yang RS, Tsauo JY. Home‐based trunk‐strengthening exercise for osteoporotic and osteopenic postmenopausal women without fracture ‐ A pilot study. Clinical Rehabilitation 2005;19(1):28‐36.

Connelly 1995 {published data only}

Connelly DM, Vandervoort AA. Effects of detraining on knee extensor strength and functional mobility in a group of elderly women. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 1997;26(6):340‐6.
Connelly DM, Vandervoort AA. Improvement in knee extensor strength of institutionalized elderly women after exercise with ankle weights. Physiotherapy Canada 1995;41(1):15‐23.

Connelly 2000 {published data only}

Connelly DM, Vandervoort AA. Effects of isokinetic strength training on concentric and eccentric torque development in the ankle dorsiflexors of older adults. The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 2000;55:B465‐72.

Cramp 2006 {published data only}

Cramp MC, Greenwood RJ, Gill M, Rothwell JC, Scott OM. Low intensity strength training for ambulatory stroke patients. Disability & Rehabilitation 2006;28(13‐14):883‐9.

Cress 1991 {published data only}

Cress ME, Thomas DP, Johnson J, Kasch FW, Cassens RG, Smith EL, et al. Effect of training on VO2 max, thigh strength and muscle morphology in septuagenarian women. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1991;23:752‐8.

Cress 1999 {published data only}

Cress ME, Buchner DM, Questad KA, Esselman PC, de Lateur BJ, Schwartz RS. Exercise: effects on physical functional performance in older adults. The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 1999;54(5):M242‐8.

Daepp 2006 {published data only}

Daepp C, Vogt M, Klossner S, Popp A. Lippuner K, Hoppeler H. Slimmer and stronger ‐ the effect of eccentric exercise in the elderly. Schweizerische Zeitschrift Fuer Sportmedizin Und Sporttraumatologie/Revue Suisse De Medecine Et De Traumatologie Du Sport/Rivista Svizzera Di Medicina e Traumatologia Dello Sport 2006;54(2):71. [1422‐0644]

Daly 2005 {published data only}

Daly RM, Dunstan DW, Owen N, Jolley D, Shaw JE, Zimmet PZ. Does high‐intensity resistance training maintain bone mass during moderate weight loss in older overweight adults with type 2 diabetes?. Osteoporosis International 2005;16(12):1703‐12.

de Bruin 2007 {published data only}

de Bruin ED, Menzi C, Waelle R, Murer K. Strength training and balance performance compared to combined strength and agility training in elderly over 80 years: a three months RCT. Isokinetics and Exercise Science 2004;12(1):33‐4.
de Bruin ED, Murer K. Effect of additional functional exercises on balance in elderly people. Clinical Rehabilitation 2007;21(2):112‐21.

de Vito 1999 {published data only}

de Vito G, Bernardi M, Forte R, Pulejo C, Figura F. Effects of a low‐intensity programme on VO2 max and maximal instantaneous peak power in elderly women. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology 1999;80(3):227‐32.

DeBolt 2004 {published data only}

DeBolt LS, McCubbin JA, DeBolt LS, McCubbin JA. The effects of home‐based resistance exercise on balance, power, and mobility in adults with multiple sclerosis. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2004;85(2):290‐7.

Delagardelle 2002 {published data only}

Delagardelle C, Feiereisen P, Autier P, Shita R, Krecke R, Beissel J. Strength/endurance training versus endurance training in congestive heart failure. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2002;34(12):1868‐72.

Delecluse 2004 {published data only}

Delecluse C, Colman V, Roelants M, Verschueren S, Derave W, Ceux T, et al. Exercise programs for older men: mode and intensity to induce the highest possible health‐related benefits. Preventive Medicine 2004;39(4):823‐33.

DeVito 2003 {published data only}

DeVito CA, Morgan RO, Duque M, Abdel‐Moty E, Virnig BA. Physical performance effects of low‐intensity exercise among clinically defined high‐risk elders. Gerontology 2003;49(3):146‐54.

Dibble 2006 {published data only}

Dibble LE, Hale T, Marcus RL, Gerber JP, Lastayo PC. The safety and feasibility of high‐force eccentric resistance exercise in persons with Parkinson's disease. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2006;87(9):1280‐2.

Dibble 2006b {published data only}

Dibble LE, Hale TF, Marcus RL, Droge J, Gerber JP, LaStayo PC. High‐intensity resistance training amplifies muscle hypertrophy and functional gains in persons with Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders 2006;21(9):1444‐52.

Dunstan 2002 {published data only}

Dunstan DW, Daly RM, Owen N, Jolley D, De Courten M, Shaw J, et al. High‐intensity resistance training improves glycemic control in older patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002;25(10):1729‐36.

Dunstan 2005 {published data only}

Dunstan DW, Daly RM, Owen N, Jolley D, Vulikh E, Shaw J, et al. Home‐based resistance training is not sufficient to maintain improved glycemic control following supervised training in older individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005;28(1):3‐9.

Dupler 1993 {published data only}

Dupler TL, Cortes C. Effects of a whole‐body resistive training regimen in the elderly. Gerontology 1993;39(6):314‐9.

Fernandez Ramirez 99 {published data only}

Fernandez Ramirez AI, Fernandez Ramirez AS. Effect of an exercise program on physical fitness of institutionalized elderly men. Archivos de Medicina del Deporte 1999;16(72):325‐32.

Ferrara 2006 {published data only}

Ferrara CM, Goldberg AP, Ortmeyer HK, Ryan AS. Effects of aerobic and resistive exercise training on glucose disposal and skeletal muscle metabolism in older men. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2006;61(5):480‐7.

Ferri 2003 {published data only}

Ferri A, Scaglioni G, Pousson M, Capodaglio P, Van Hoecke J, Narici MV. Strength and power changes of the human plantar flexors and knee extensors in response to resistance training in old age. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 2003;177(1):69‐78.

Fiatarone 1990 {published data only}

Fiatarone MA, Marks ED, Ryan ND, Meredith CN, Lipsitz LA, Evans WJ. High‐intensity strength training in nonagenarians. Effects on skeletal muscle. JAMA 1990;263(22):3029‐34.

Fisher 1991 {published data only}

Fisher NM, Pendergast DR, Calkins E. Muscle rehabilitation in impaired elderly nursing home residents. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1991;72:181‐5.
Fisher NM, Pendergast DR, Gresham GE, Calkins E. Muscle rehabilitation: its effect on muscular and functional performance of patients with knee osteoarthritis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1991;72(6):367‐74.

Forte 2003 {published data only}

Forte R, De Vito G, Figura F. Effects of dynamic resistance training on heart rate variability in healthy older women. European Journal of Applied Physiology 2003;89(1):85‐9.

Frontera 1988 {published data only}

Frontera WR, Meredith C, O'Reilly KP, Knuttgen HG, Evans W. Strength conditioning in older men: skeletal muscle hypertrophy and improved function. Journal of Applied Physiology 1988;64(3):1038‐44.

Frontera 1990 {published data only}

Frontera WR, Meredith CN, O'Reilly KP, Evans WJ. Strength training and determinants of VO2 Max in older men. Journal of Applied Physiology 1990;68(1):329‐33.

Galvao 2006 {published data only}

Galvao DA, Nosaka K, Taaffe DR, Spry N, Kristjanson LJ, McGuigan MR, et al. Resistance training and reduction of treatment side effects in prostate cancer patients. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2006;38(12):2045‐52.

Grimby 1992 {published data only}

Grimby G, Aniansson A, Hedberg M, Henning GB, Grangard U, Kvist H. Training can improve muscle strength and endurance in 78‐ to 84‐year‐old men. Journal of Applied Physiology 1992;73(6):2517‐23.

Gur 2002 {published data only}

Gur H, Cakin N, Akova B, Okay E, Kucukoglu S. Concentric versus combined concentric‐eccentric isokinetic training: effects on functional capacity and symptoms in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002;83(3):308‐16.

Hageman 2002 {published data only}

Hageman PA, Thomas VS. Gait performance in dementia: the effects of a 6‐week resistance training program in an adult day‐care setting. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2002;17(4):329‐34.

Hakkinen 1999 {published data only}

Hakkinen A, Sokka T, Kotaniemi A, Kautiainen H, Jappinen I, Laitinen L, et al. Dynamic strength training in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis increases muscle strength but not bone mineral density. Journal of Rheumatology 1999;26(6):1257‐63.

Hameed 2004 {published data only}

Hameed M, Lange KHW, Andersen JL, Schjerling P, Kjaer M, Harridge SDR, et al. The effect of recombinant human growth hormone and resistance training on IGF‐I mRNA expression in the muscles of elderly men. Journal of Physiology 2004;555(1):231‐40.

Hartard 1996 {published data only}

Hartard M, Haber P, Ilieva D, Preisinger E, Seidl G, Huber J. Systematic strength training as a model of therapeutic intervention. A controlled trial in postmenopausal women with osteopenia. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 1996;75(1):21‐8.

Haub 2002 {published data only}

Haub MD, Wells AM, Tarnopolsky MA, Campbell WW. Effect of protein source on resistive‐training‐induced changes in body composition and muscle size in older men. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2002;76(3):511‐7.

Heiwe 2005 {published data only}

Heiwe S, Clyne N, Tollback A, Borg K. Effects of regular resistance training on muscle histopathology and morphometry in elderly patients with chronic kidney disease. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2005;84(11):865‐74.

Henwood 2006 {published data only}

Henwood TR, Taaffe DR. Short‐term resistance training and the older adult: The effect of varied programmes for the enhancement of muscle strength and functional performance. Clinical Physiology & Functional Imaging 2006;26(5):305‐13.

Hess 2005 {published data only}

Hess JA, Woollacott M. Effect of high‐intensity strength‐training on functional measures of balance ability in balance‐impaired older adults. Journal of Manipulative & Physiological Therapeutics 2005;28(8):582‐90.

Hess 2006 {published data only}

Hess JA, Woollacott M, Shivitz N. Ankle force and rate of force production increase following high intensity strength training in frail older adults. Aging‐Clinical & Experimental Research 2006;18(2):107‐115.

Hirsch 2003 {published data only}

Hirsch MA, Toole T, Maitland CG, Rider RA. The effects of balance training and high‐intensity resistance training on persons with idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2003;84(8):1109‐17.

Host 2007 {published data only}

Host HH, Sinacore DR, Bohnert KL, Steger‐May K, Brown M, Binder EF. Training‐induced strength and functional adaptations after hip fracture. Physical Therapy 2007;87:292‐303.

Huggett 2004 {published data only}

Huggett DL, Elliott ID, Overend TJ, Vandervoort AA. Comparison of heart‐rate and blood‐pressure increases during isokinetic eccentric versus isometric exercise in older adults. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity 2004;12(2):157‐69.

Hughes 2004 {published data only}

Hughes SL, Seymour RB, Campbell R, Pollak N, Huber G, Sharma L. Impact of the fit and strong intervention on older adults with osteoarthritis. Gerontologist 2004;44(2):217‐28.
Hughes SL, Seymour RB, Campbell RT, Huber G, Pollak N, Sharma L, et al. Long‐term impact of fit and strong! On older adults with osteoarthritis. Gerontologist 2006;46(6):801‐14.

Humphries 2000 {published data only}

Humphries B, Newton RU, Bronks R, Marshall S, McBride J, Triplett‐McBride T, et al. Effect of exercise intensity on bone density, strength, and calcium turnover in older women. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2000;32(6):1043‐50.

Hung 2004 {published data only}

Hung C, Daub B, Black B, Welsh R, Quinney A, Haykowsky M. Exercise training improves overall physical fitness and quality of life in older women with coronary artery disease.[see comment]. Chest 2004;126(4):1026‐31.

Hunter 1995 {published data only}

Hunter GR, Treuth MS, Weinsier RL, Kekes‐Szabo T, Kell SH, Roth DL, et al. The effects of strength conditioning on older women's ability to perform daily tasks. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1995;43(7):756‐60.

Hunter 2002 {published data only}

Hunter GR, Bryan DR, Wetzstein CJ, Zuckerman PA, Bamman MM. Resistance training and intra‐abdominal adipose tissue in older men and women. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2002;34(6):1023‐8.

Ibanez 2005 {published data only}

Ibanez J, Izquierdo M, Arguelles I, Forga L, Larrion JL, Garcia‐Unciti M, et al. Twice‐weekly progressive resistance training decreases abdominal fat and improves insulin sensitivity in older men with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005;28(3):662‐7.

Ivey 2000 {published data only}

Ivey FM, Tracy BL, Lemmer JT, NessAiver M, Metter EJ, Fozard JL, et al. Effects of strength training and detraining on muscle quality: age and gender comparisons. Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 2000;55(3):B152‐7.

Johansen 2006 {published data only}

Johansen KL, Painter PL, Sakkas GK, Gordon P, Doyle J, Shubert T. Effects of resistance exercise training and nandrolone decanoate on body composition and muscle function among patients who receive hemodialysis: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2006;17(8):2307‐14.

Jones 1987 {published data only}

Jones D, Rutherford O. Human muscle strength training: The effects of three different regimes and the nature of the resultant changes. Journal of Physiology 1987;391:1‐11.

Judge 2005 {published data only}

Judge JO, Kleppinger A, Kenny A, Smith JA, Biskup B, Marcella G. Home‐based resistance training improves femoral bone mineral density in women on hormone therapy. Osteoporosis International 2005;16(9):1096‐108.

Katula 2006 {published data only}

Katula JA, Sipe M, Rejeski WJ, Focht BC. Strength training in older adults: an empowering intervention. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2006;38(1):106‐11.

Kerr 2001 {published data only}

Kerr D, Ackland T, Maslen B, Morton A, Prince R. Resistance training over 2 years increases bone mass in calcium‐replete postmenopausal women. Journal of Bone & Mineral Research 2001;16(1):175‐81.

Kolbe‐Alexander 2006 {published data only}

Kolbe‐Alexander TL, Charlton KE, Lambert EV. Effectiveness of a community based low intensity exercise program for older adults. Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging 2006;10(1):21‐9.

Komatireddy 1997 {published data only}

Komatireddy GR, Leitch RW, Cella K, Browning G, Minor M. Efficacy of low load resistive muscle training in patients with rheumatoid arthritis functional class II and III. Journal of Rheumatology 1997;24(8):1531‐9.

La Forge 2002 {published data only}

La Forge R. Effect of high‐intensity resistance exercise on elderly bones. IDEA Health & Fitness Source 2002;20(5):17. [1096‐8156]

Labarque 2002 {published data only}

Labarque V, 'T Eijnde BO, Van Leemputte M. Resistance training alters torque‐velocity relation of elbow flexors in elderly men [L ' entrainement de force altere la relation torsion‐velocite des muscles flechisseurs du coude chez les hommes ages]. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2002;34(5):851‐56. [0195‐9131]

Lambert 2002 {published data only}

Lambert CP, Sullivan DH, Freeling SA, Lindquist DM, Evans WJ. Effects of testosterone replacement and/or resistance exercise on the composition of megestrol acetate stimulated weight gain in elderly men: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2002;87(5):2100‐6.

Lambert 2003 {published data only}

Lambert CP, Sullivan DH, Evans WJ. Megestrol acetate‐induced weight gain does not negatively affect blood lipids in elderly men: Effects of resistance training and testosterone replacement. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2003;58(7):644‐647.

Lamotte 2005 {published data only}

Lamotte M, Niset G, Van de Borne P. The effect of different intensity modalities of resistance training on beat‐to‐beat blood pressure in cardiac patients. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation 2005;12(1):12‐7.

Levinger 2005 {published data only}

Levinger I, Bronks R, Cody DV, Linton I, Davie A. Resistance training for chronic heart failure patients on beta blocker medications. International Journal of Cardiology 2005;102(3):493‐9.

Lexell 1992 {published data only}

Lexell J, Robertsson E, Stenstrom E. Effects of strength training in elderly women [letter]. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1992;40(2):190‐1.

Lexell 1995 {published data only}

Lexell J, Downham DY, Larsson Y, Bruhn E, Morsing B. Heavy‐resistance training in older Scandinavian men and women: short‐ and long‐term effects on arm and leg muscles. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 1995;5(6):329‐41.

Littbrand 2006 {published data only}

Littbrand H, Rosendahl E, Lindelof N, Lundin‐Olsson L, Gustafson Y, Nyberg L. A high‐intensity functional weight‐bearing exercise program for older people dependent in activities of daily living and living in residential care facilities: evaluation of the applicability with focus on cognitive function. Physical Therapy 2006;86(4):489‐98.

Liu 2004 {published data only}

Liu SW, Liu HB, Tang D. Strengthened training of knee joint isolated movement for ambulation ability in patients with stroke. [Chinese]. Zhongguo Linchuang Kangfu 2004;8(25):5214‐5.

Liu‐Ambrose 2004 {published data only}

Liu‐Ambrose TYL, Khan KM, Eng JJ, Heinonen A, McKay HA. Both resistance and agility training increase cortical bone density in 75‐ to 85‐year‐old women with low bone mass: A 6‐month randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Densitometry 2004;7(4):390‐8.

Loeppky 2005 {published data only}

Loeppky JA, Gurney B, Kobayashi Y, Icenogle MV. Effects of ischemic training on leg exercise endurance. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 2005;42(4):511‐21.

Lohman 1995 {published data only}

Lohman T, Going S, Pamenter R, Hall M, Boyden T, Houtkooper L, et al. Effects of resistance training on regional and total bone mineral density in premenopausal women: a randomized prospective study. Journal of Bone & Mineral Research 1995;10(7):1015‐24.

Maddalozzo 2000 {published data only}

Maddalozzo GF, Snow CM. High intensity resistance training: effects on bone in older men and women. Calcified Tissue International 2000;66(6):394‐404.

Magnusson 1996 {published data only}

Magnusson G, Gordon A, Kaijser L, Sylven C, Isberg B, Karpakka J, et al. High intensity knee extensor training in patients with chronic heart failure. European Heart Journal 1996;17(7):1048‐55.

Marcora 2005 {published data only}

Marcora SM, Lemmey AB, Maddison PJ. Can progressive resistance training reverse cachexia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis? Results of a pilot study. Journal of Rheumatology 2005;32(6):1031‐9.

Martin Ginis 2006 {published data only}

Martin Ginis KA, Latimer AE, Brawley LR, Jung ME, Hicks AL. Weight training to activities of daily living: Helping older adults make a connection. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2006;38(1):116‐21.

McCool 1991 {published data only}

McCool J, Schneider J. Home‐based leg strengthening for older adults initiated through private practice. Preventative Medicine 1991;28:105‐10.

McMurdo 1994 {published data only}

McMurdo M, Rennie L. Improvements in quadriceps strength with regular seated exercise in the institutionalised elderly. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1994;75:600‐3.

Mobily 2004 {published data only}

Mobily KE, Mobily PR, Raimondi RM, Walter KL, Rubenstein LM. Strength training and falls among older adults: a community‐based TR intervention. Annual in Therapeutic Recreation 2004;13:1‐11, 109‐18.

Morey 1989 {published data only}

Morey MC, Cowper PA, Feussner JR, DiPasquale RC, Crowley GM, Kitzman DW, et al. Evaluation of a supervised exercise program in a geriatric population. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1989;37:348‐54.

Morey 1991 {published data only}

Morey MC, Cowper PA, Feussner JR, DiPasquale RC, Crowley GM, Sullivan RJ. Two‐year trends in physical performance following supervised exercise among community‐dwelling older veterans. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1991;39(6):549‐54.

Morse 2005 {published data only}

Morse CI, Thom JM, Mian OS, Muirhead A, Birch KM, Narici MV. Muscle strength, volume and activation following 12‐month resistance training in 70‐year‐old males. European Journal of Applied Physiology 2005;95(2‐3):197‐204.

Narici 1989 {published data only}

Narici MV, Roi GS, Landoni L, Minetti AE, Cerretelli P. Changes in force, cross‐sectional area and neural activation during strength training and detraining of the human quadriceps. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology 1989;59(4):310‐9.

Nelson 1997 {published data only}

Hausdorff JM, Nelson ME, Kaliton D, Layne JE, Bernstein MJ, Nuernberger A, et al. Etiology and modification of gait instability in older adults: A randomized controlled trial of exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology 2001;90:2117‐29.
Nelson ME, Layne JE, Nuernberger A, Allen MJ, Judge J, Kailiton D, et al. Home‐based exercise training in the frail elderly: Effects on physical performance. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1997;29(Suppl 5):S110.

Ochala 2005 {published data only}

Ochala J, Lambertz D, Van Hoecke J, Pousson M, Ochala J, Lambertz D, et al. Effect of strength training on musculotendinous stiffness in elderly individuals. European Journal of Applied Physiology 2005;94(1‐2):126‐33.

Ohira 2006 {published data only}

Ohira T, Schmitz KH, Ahmed RL, Yee D. Effects of weight training on quality of life in recent breast cancer survivors: the Weight Training for Breast Cancer Survivors (WTBS) study. Cancer 2006;106(9):2076‐83.

Oka 2000 {published data only}

Oka RK, De Marco T, Haskell WL, Botvinick E, Dae MW, Bolen K, et al. Impact of a home‐based walking and resistance training program on quality of life in patients with heart failure. American Journal of Cardiology 2000;85(3):365‐9.

Okawa 2004 {published data only}

Okawa T, Sato T, Koike T. Effect of exercises on bone mineral density and physical strength in elderly women. Nippon Rinsho ‐ Japanese Journal of Clinical Medicine 2004;62 Suppl 2:510‐4.

Okumiya 1996 {published data only}

Okumiya K, Matsubayashi K, Wada T, Kimura S, Doi Y, Ozawa T. Effects of exercise on neurobehavioral function in community‐dwelling older people more than 75 years of age. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1996;44(5):569‐72.

Panton 2004 {published data only}

Panton LB, Golden J, Broeder CE, Browder KD, Cestaro‐Seifer DJ, Seifer FD. The effects of resistance training on functional outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. European Journal of Applied Physiology 2004;91(4):443‐9.

Parsons 1992 {published data only}

Parsons D, Foster V, Harman F, Dickinson A, Olivia P, Westerlind K. Balance and strength changes in elderly subjects after heavy resistance strength training [abstract]. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1992;24(Suppl 5):S21.

Perhonen 1992 {published data only}

Perhonen M, Komi P, Hakkinen K, Von Bonsdorff H, Partio E. Strength training and neuromuscular function in elderly people with total knee endoprosthesis. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 1992;2:234‐43.

Perkins 1961 {published data only}

Perkins L, Kaiser H. Results of short‐term isotonic and isometric exercise programs in persons over sixty. Physical Therapy Review 1961;41:633‐5.

Perrig‐Chiello 1998 {published data only}

Perrig‐Chiello P, Perrig WJ, Ehrsam R, Staehelin HB, Krings F. The effects of resistance training on well‐being and memory in elderly volunteers. Age and Ageing 1998;27(4):469‐76.

Petrella 2000 {published data only}

Petrella R, Bartha C. Home based exercise therapy for older patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Rheumatology 2000;27(9):2215‐21.

Phillips 2004 {published data only}

Phillips WT, Ziuraitis JR. Energy cost of single‐set resistance training in older adults. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 2004;18(3):606‐9.

Pyka 1994 {published data only}

Pyka G, Lindenberger E, Charette S, Marcux R. Muscle strength and fiber adaptations to a year‐long resistance training program. Journal of Gerontology 1994;49(1):M22‐7.

Rabelo 2004 {published data only}

Rabelo HT, Oliveira RJ, Bottaro M. Effects of resistance training on activities of daily living in older women. Biology of Sport 2004;21(4):325‐36. [0860‐021X]

Ramsbottom 2004 {published data only}

Ramsbottom R, Ambler A, Potter J, Jordan B, Nevill A, Williams C. The effect of 6 months training on leg power, balance, and functional mobility of independently living adults over 70 years old. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity 2004;12(4):497‐510.

Reeves 2004b {published data only}

Reeves ND, Narici MV, Maganaris CN. Effect of resistance training on skeletal muscle‐specific force in elderly humans. [Abstract]. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 2004;14(2):134‐5. [0905‐7188]

Reeves 2005 {published data only}

Reeves ND, Maganaris CN, Narici MV. Plasticity of dynamic muscle performance with strength training in elderly humans. Muscle & Nerve 2005;31(3):355‐64.

Reeves 2006 {published data only}

Reeves ND, Narici MV, Maganaris CN. Musculoskeletal adaptations to resistance training in old age. Manual Therapy 2006;11(3):192‐6.

Richards 1996 {published data only}

Richards D. Efficacy of upper extremity strength training on upper extremity functional performance among elderly long‐term care residents [thesis]. Pittsburgh (PA): Univ. of Pittsburgh, 1996.

Roman 1993 {published data only}

Roman WJ, Fleckenstein J, Stray‐Gundersen J, Alway SE, Peshock R, Gonyea WJ. Adaptations in the elbow flexors of elderly males after heavy‐resistance training. Journal of Applied Physiology 1993;74(2):750‐4.

Rooks 1997 {published data only}

Rooks D, Kiel D, Parsons C, Hayes W. Self‐paced resistance training and walking exercise in community‐dwelling older adults: effects on neuromotor performance. Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 1997;52(3):M161‐8.

Salli 2006 {published data only}

Salli A, Ugurlu H, Emlik D. Comparison of the effectiveness of concentric, combined concentric‐eccentric and isometric exercises on symptoms and functional capacity in patients with knee osteoarthritis [Diz Osteoartritinde Konsantrik, Kombine Konsantrik‐Eksantrik ve Izometrik Egzersizlerin Semptomlar ve Fonksiyonel Kapasite Uzerine Etkinliginin Karsilastirilmasi]. Turkiye Fiziksel Tip ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi 2006;52(2):61‐7.

Sallinen 2006 {published data only}

Sallinen J, Pakarinen A, Fogelholm M, Sillanpaa E, Alen M, Volek JS, et al. Serum basal hormone concentrations and muscle mass in aging women: effects of strength training and diet. International Journal of Sport Nutrition & Exercise Metabolism 2006;16(3):316‐31.

Sanders 1998 {published data only}

Sanders S. The effects of two modes of strength training on elderly men [thesis]. Minneapolis (MN): Walden University, 1998.

Sartorio 2001 {published data only}

Sartorio A, Lafortuna C, Capodaglio P, Vangeli V, Narici MV, Faglia G. Effects of a 16‐week progressive high‐intensity strength training (HIST) on indexes of bone turnover in men over 65 years: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation 2001;24(11):882‐6.

Sauvage 1992 {published data only}

Sauvage LJ, Myklebust B, Crow‐Pan J, Novak S, Millington P, Hoffman MD, et al. A clinical trial of strengthening and aerobic exercise to improve gait and balance in elderly male nursing home residents. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1992;71:333‐42.

Sayers 2003 {published data only}

Sayers SP, Bean J, Cuoco A, LeBrasseur NK, Jette A, Fielding RA. Changes in function and disability after resistance training: does velocity matter? A pilot study. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2003;82(8):605‐13.

Schott 2006 {published data only}

Schott N, Konietzny S, Raschka C. Red ginseng enhances the effectiveness of strength training in elderly: A randomized placebo‐controlled double‐blind trial [Einfluss von Rotem Ginseng auf ein Krafttraining bei alteren Erwachsenen: Eine randomisierte placebokontrollierte Doppelblindstudie]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Ganzheitsmedizin 2006;18(7‐8):376‐83.

Sharp 1997 {published data only}

Sharp S, Brouwer B. Isokinetic strength training of the hemiparetic knee: effects on function and spasticity. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1997;78:1231‐6.

Shaw 1998 {published data only}

Shaw JM, Snow CM. Weighted vest exercise improves indices of fall risk in older women. Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 1998;53(1):M53‐8.

Sherrington 1997 {published data only}

Sherrington C, Lord SR. Home exercise to improve strength and walking velocity after hip fracture: a randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1997;78:208‐12.

Signorile 2005 {published data only}

Signorile JF, Carmel MP, Lai S, Roos BA. Early plateaus of power and torque gains during high‐ and low‐speed resistance training of older women. Journal of Applied Physiology 2005;98(4):1213‐20.

Sinaki 1996 {published data only}

Sinaki M, Wahner H, Bergstralh E, Hodgson SF, Offord KP, Squires RW, et al. Three‐year controlled, randomized trial of the effect of dose‐specified loading and strengthening exercises on bone mineral density of spine and femur in nonalthletic, physically active women. Bone 1996;19(3):233‐44.

Sipila 1994 {published data only}

Sipila S, Suominen H. Knee extension strength and walking speed in relation to quadriceps muscle composition and training in elderly women. Clinical Physiology 1994;14(4):433‐42.

Spruit 2002 {published data only}

Spruit MA, Gosselink R, Troosters T, De Paepe K, Decramer M. Resistance versus endurance training in patients with COPD and peripheral muscle weakness. European Respiratory Journal 2002;19(6):1072‐8.

Sullivan 2001 {published data only}

Sullivan DH, Wall PT, Bariola JR, Bopp MM, Frost YM. Progressive resistance muscle strength training of hospitalized frail elderly. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2001;80:503‐9.

Taaffe 1997 {published data only}

Taaffe DR, Marcus R. Dynamic muscle strength alterations to detraining and retraining in elderly men. Clinical Physiology 1997;17(3):311‐24.

Teixeira 2002 {published data only}

Teixeira R, Guerra S, Esculcas C, Ribeiro JC, Carvalho J, Mota J. Influence of age on physical fitness improvements after training on elderly women. [Abstract]. In Koskolou 2002:514.

Teixeira 2003 {published data only}

Teixeira PJ, Going SB, Houtkooper LB, Metcalfe LL, Blew RM, Flint‐Wagner HG, et al. Resistance training in postmenopausal women with and without hormone therapy. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2003;35(4):555‐62.

Teixeira‐Salm. 2005 {published data only}

Teixeira‐Salmela LF, Santiago L, Lima RC, Lana DM, Camargos FF, Cassiano JG. Functional performance and quality of life related to training and detraining of community‐dwelling elderly. Disability & Rehabilitation 2005;27(17):1007‐12.

Thielman 2004 {published data only}

Thielman GT, Dean CM, Gentile AM. Rehabilitation of reaching after stroke: Task‐related training versus progressive resistive exercise. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2004;85(10):1613‐8.

Thomas 2004 {published data only}

Thomas KJ, Tomsic JB, Martin MS. Does participation in light to moderate strength and endurance exercise result in measurable physical benefits for older adults?. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy 2004;27(2):53‐8.

Thomas 2005 {published data only}

Thomas GN, Hong AW, Tomlinson B, Lau E, Lam CW, Sanderson JE, et al. Effects of Tai Chi and resistance training on cardiovascular risk factors in elderly Chinese subjects: a 12‐month longitudinal, randomized, controlled intervention study. Clinical Endocrinology 2005;63(6):663‐9.

Thompson 1988 {published data only}

Thompson RF, Crist DM, Marsh M, Rosenthal M. Effects of physical exercise for elderly patients with physical impairments. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1988;36(2):130‐5.

Timonen 2002 {published data only}

Timonen L, Rantanen T, Ryynanen OP, Taimela S, Timonen TE, Sulkava R. A randomized controlled trial of rehabilitation after hospitalization in frail older women: effects on strength, balance and mobility. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 2002;12(3):186‐92.

Timonen 2006 {published data only}

Timonen L, Rantanen T, Makinen E, Timonen TE, Tormakangas T, Sulkava R. Effects of group‐based exercise program on functional abilities in frail older women after hospital discharge. Aging‐Clinical & Experimental Research 2006;18(1):50‐6.

Timonen 2006b {published data only}

Timonen L, Rantanen T, Timonen TE, Sulkava R. Effects of a group‐based exercise program on the mood state of frail older women after discharge from hospital. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 2006;17(12):1106‐11.

Treuth 1994 {published data only}

Treuth MS, Ryan AS, Pratley RE, Rubin MA, Miller JP, Nicklas BJ, et al. Effects of strength training on total and regional body composition in older men. Journal of Applied Physiology 1994;77(2):614‐20.

Trudelle‐Jack. 2004 {published data only}

Trudelle‐Jackson E, Smith SS. Effects of a late‐phase exercise program after total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2004;85(7):1056‐62.

Tsuji 2000 {published data only}

Tsuji I, Tamagawa A, Nagatomi R, Irie N, Ohkubo T, Saito M, et al. Randomised controlled trial of exercise training for older people: study design and primary outcome. Journal of Epidemiology 2000;10(1):55‐64.

Vad 2002 {published data only}

Vad E, Worm C, Lauritsen JM, Poulsen PB, Puggaard L, Stovring H, et al. Physical training as treatment of reduced functional ability in frail 75+ year‐olds living at home. A randomized intervention study in general practice with technological assessment elements [Fysisk traening som behandling af nedsat funktionsevne hos svage, hjemmeboende 75+ ‐arige. Et randomiseret interventionsstudie i almen praksis omfattende elementer til en teknologivurdering]. Ugeskrift for Laeger 2002;164(44):5140‐4.

Vale 2003 {published data only}

Vale RGS, Damasceno V, Cordeiro LS, Baptista MR, Pernambuco CS, Motta T, et al. Effects of supine resistance strength training in independent elderly women [Efeitos de um treinamento resistido de forca no supino reto em idosas independentes [Abstract]]. Fitness & Performance Journal 2003;2(4):255. [1519‐9088]

Valkeinen 2005 {published data only}

Valkeinen H, Hakkinen K, Pakarinen A, Hannonen P, Hakkinen A, Airaksinen O, et al. Muscle hypertrophy, strength development, and serum hormones during strength training in elderly women with fibromyalgia. Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology 2005;34(4):309‐14.

Van den Ende 2000 {published data only}

Van den Ende CH, Breedveld FC, le Cessie S, Dijkmans BA, de Mug AW, Hazes JM. Effect of intensive exercise on patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised clinical trial. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2000;59(8):615‐21.

Vanbiervliet 2003 {published data only}

Vanbiervliet W, Pelissier J, Ledermann B, Kotzki N, Benaim C, Herisson C, et al. Strength training with elastic bands: measure of its effects in cardiac rehabilitation after coronary diseases [Le renforcement musculaire par bandes elastiques : evaluation de ses effets dans le reentrainement a l'effort du coronarien]. Annales de Readaptation et de Medecine Physique 2003;46(8):545‐52.

Veloso 2003 {published data only}

Veloso U, Monteiro W, Farinatti P. Do continuous and intermittent exercises sets induce similar cardiovascular responses in the elderly women?. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte 2003;9(2):85‐90. [1517‐8692]

Verfaillie 1997 {published data only}

Verfaillie D, Nichols J, Turkel E, Hovell M. Effects of resistance, balance and gait training on reduction of risk factors leading to falls in elders. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity 1997;5:213‐28.

Villareal 2003 {published data only}

Villareal DT, Binder EF, Yarasheski KE, Williams DB, Brown M, Sinacore DR, et al. Effects of exercise training added to ongoing hormone replacement therapy on bone mineral density in frail elderly women. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2003;51(7):985‐90.

Villareal 2006b {published data only}

Villareal DT, Holloszy JO. DHEA enhances effects of weight training on muscle mass and strength in elderly women and men. American Journal of Physiology ‐ Endocrinology & Metabolism 2006;291(5):E1003‐8.

Vincent 2002b {published data only}

Vincent KR, Vincent HK, Braith RW, Lennon SL, Lowenthal DT. Resistance exercise training attenuates exercise‐induced lipid peroxidation in the elderly. European Journal of Applied Physiology 2002;87(4/5):416‐23. [1439‐6327]

Vincent 2003 {published data only}

Vincent KR, Vincent HK, Braith RW, Bhatnagar V, Lowenthal DT. Strength training and hemodynamic responses to exercise. American Journal of Geriatric Cardiology 2003;12(2):97‐106.

Vincent 2006 {published data only}

Vincent KR, Braith RW, Vincent HK. Influence of resistance exercise on lumbar strength in older, overweight adults. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2006;87(3):383‐9. [0003‐9993]

Woo 2007 {published data only}

Woo J, Hong A, Lau E, Lynn H. A randomised controlled trials of Tai Chi and resistance exercise on bone health, muscle strength and balance in community‐living elderly people. Age and Ageing 2007;36:262‐8.

Yang 2006 {published data only}

Yang Y, Wang R, Lin K, Chu M, Chan R. Task‐oriented progressive resistance strength training improves muscle strength and functional performance in individuals with stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation 2006;20(10):860‐70.

Zion 2003 {published data only}

Zion AS, De Meersman R, Diamond BE, Bloomfield DM, Zion AS, De Meersman R, et al. A home‐based resistance‐training program using elastic bands for elderly patients with orthostatic hypotension. Clinical Autonomic Research 2003;13(4):286‐92.

References to studies awaiting assessment

Ir a:

Bennell 2007 {published data only}

Bennell KL, Hunt MA, Wrigley TV, Hunter DJ. The effects of hip muscle strengthening on knee load, pain, and function in people with knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for a randomised, single‐blind controlled trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2007;8:121.

Cheema 2007 {published data only}

Cheema B, Abas H, Smith B, O'Sullivan A, Chan M, Patwardhan A, et al. Progressive exercise for anabolism in kidney disease (PEAK): a randomized, controlled trial of resistance training during hemodialysis. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 2007;18(5):1594‐601.

Fahlman 2007 {published data only}

Fahlman M, Morgan A, McNevin N, Topp R, Boardley D. Combination training and resistance training as effective interventions to improve functioning in elders. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity 2007;15(2):195‐205.

Henwood 2008 {published data only}

Henwood TR, Riek S, Taaffe DR. Strength versus muscle power‐specific resistance training in community‐dwelling older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2008;63(1):83‐91.

Karinkanta 2007 {published data only}

Karinkanta S, Heinonen A, Sievanen H, Uusi‐Rasi K, Pasanen M, Ojala K, et al. A multi‐component exercise regimen to prevent functional decline and bone fragility in home‐dwelling elderly women: randomized, controlled trial. Osteoporosis International 2007;18(4):453‐62. [MEDLINE: Yes]

Lin 2007 {published data only}

Lin D‐H, Lin Y‐F, Chai H‐M, Han Y‐C, Jan M‐H. Comparison of proprioceptive functions between computerized proprioception facilitation exercise and closed kinetic chain exercise in patients with knee osteoarthritis.[erratum appears in Clin Rheumatol. 2007 Apr;26(4):617 Note: Chai, Hei‐Min [corrected to Chai, Huei‐Ming]]. Clinical Rheumatology 2007;26(4):520‐8. [MEDLINE: yes]

Mitchell 2001 {published data only}

Mitchell SL, Stott DJ, Martin BJ, Grant SJ. Randomized controlled trial of quadriceps training after proximal femoral fracture. Clinical Rehabilitation 2001;15(3):282‐290.

O'Shea 2007 {published data only}

O'Shea SD, Taylor NF, Paratz JD. A predominantly home‐based progressive resistance exercise program increases knee extensor strength in the short‐term in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 2007;53(4):229‐37.

Raso 2007 {published data only}

Raso V, Benard G, Da Silva Duarte AJ, Natale VM. Effect of resistance training on immunological parameters of healthy elderly women. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2007;39(12):2152‐9.

Williams 2007 {published data only}

Williams AD, Carey MF, Selig S, Hayes A, Krum H, Patterson J, et al. Circuit resistance training in chronic heart failure improves skeletal muscle mitochondrial ATP production rate ‐ a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Cardiac Failure 2007;13(2):79‐85.

Anonymous 2001

Anonymous. Guideline for the prevention of falls in older persons. American Geriatrics Society, British Geriatrics Society, and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Panel on Falls Prevention. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2001;49(5):664‐72.

Brosseau 2003

Brosseau L, MacLeay L, Welch V, Tugwell P, Wells G. Intensity of exercise for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2003, issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004259]

Buchner 1993

Buchner DM. Understanding variability in studies of strength training in older adults: a meta‐analytic perspective. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation 1993;8(3):1‐21.

Buchner 1996

Buchner D, Larson E, Wagner E, Koepsell T, De Lateur B. Evidence for a non‐linear relationship between leg strength and gait speed. Age and Ageing 1996;25:386‐91.

Chandler 1996

Chandler JM, Hadley EC. Exercise to improve physiologic and functional performance in old age. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine 1996;12(4):761‐84.

Doherty 1993

Doherty TJ, Vandervoort AA, Brown WF. Effects of ageing on the motor unit: A brief review. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology 1993;18(4):331‐58.

Fiatarone 1993

Fiatarone M, Evans W. The etiology and reversibility of muscle dysfunction in the aged. Journals of Gerontology 1993;48(special issue):77‐83.

Frontera 1988

Frontera W, Meredith CN, O'Reilly K, Knuttgen H, Evans W. Strength conditioning in older men: skeletal muscle hypertrophy and improved function. Journal of Applied Physiology 1988;64(3):1038‐44.

Gillespie 2003

Gillespie LD, Gillespie WJ, Robertson MC, Lamb SE, Cumming RG, Rowe BH. Interventions for preventing falls in elderly people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000340.pub2]

Guralnik 1995

Guralnik J, Ferrucci L, Simonsick E, Salive M, Wallace R. Lower‐extremity function in persons over the age of 70 years as a predictor of subsequent disability. The New England Journal of Medicine 1995;332:556‐61.

Higgins 2006

Higgins JPT, Green S. Highly sensitive search strategies for identifying reports of randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6 [updated September 2006]; Appendix 5b. www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/hbook.htm (accessed 01 May 2007).

Howe 2007

Howe TE, Rochester L, Jackson A, Banks PMH, Blair VA. Exercise for improving balance in older people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004963.pub2]

Keysor 2001

Keysor JJ, Jette AM. Have we oversold the benefit of late‐life exercise?. Journals of Gerontology: Medical Sciences 2001;56A(7):M412‐M23.

King 1998

King AC, Rejeski WJ, Buchner DM. Physical activity interventions targeting older adults: a critical review and recommendations. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 1998;15(4):316‐33.

King 2001

King AC. Interventions to promote physical activity by older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2001;56 Spec No 2:36‐46.

Mazzeo 1998

Mazzeo RS, Cavanagh P, Evans WJ, Fiatarone M, Hagberg J, McAuley E, et al. American College of Sports Medicine position stand: exercise and physical activity for older adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1998;30(6):992‐1008.

Nagi 1991

Nagi SZ. Disability concepts revisited: Implications for prevention. In: Pope AM, Tarlov AR editor(s). Disability in America: Toward a national agenda for prevention. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1991:309‐327.

Province 1995

Province MA, Hadley EC, Hornbrook MC, Lipsitz LA, Philip‐Miller J, Mulrow CD, et al. The effects of exercise on falls in elderly patients. A preplanned meta‐analysis of the FICSIT trials. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1995;273(17):1341‐7.

Singh 2002

Singh MA. Exercise comes of age: rationale and recommendations for a geriatric exercise prescription. Journals of Gerontology: Medical Sciences 2002;57(5):M262‐82.

Tinetti 1986

Tinetti M, Williams T, Mayewski R. Fall risk index for elderly patients based on number of chronic disabilities. The American Journal of Medicine 1986;80:429‐34.

WHO 2001

World Health Organization. ICIDH‐2: International classification of functioning, disability and health (final draft). Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.

References to other published versions of this review

Ir a:

Latham 2003a

Latham NK, Anderson CS, Bennett DA, Stretton C. Progressive resistance strength training for physical disability in older people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002759]

Latham 2004

Latham NK, Bennett DA, Stretton CM, Anderson CS. Systematic review of progressive resistance strength training in older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A‐Biological Sciences & Medical Sciences 2004;59(1):48‐61.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

Ades 1996

Methods

RCT (randomised controlled trial)
Method of randomisation: unclear
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: not reported
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 24
Sample: healthy, sedentary
Age: mean 70.4 years (SD 4)
Inclusion criteria: healthy, sedentary older people
Exclusion criteria: angina or electrocardiographic ischaemia during exercise test, resting BP >160/90, non‐cardiopulmonary limitation of exercise capacity (i.e. claudication, arthritis, cerebrovascular disease)

Interventions

PRT (progressive resistance strength training) versus control
1. PRT
Type of exercises: 4 UL (upper limb), 3LL (lower limb)
Equipment: machines (Universal Gym)
Intensity: high (50‐80% of 1RM)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/ sets: 8/3
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: instructed not to alter their home activity habits

Outcomes

Strength (1 repetition maximum)
Peak aerobic capacity
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Baker 2001

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: generated by statistician, concealed from investigators
Assessor blinding: blinded for primary measures, not for secondary (including strength)
Participant blinding: yes
Loss to follow‐up: 2/46
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes for primary, no for secondary measures
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 46
Sample: older people with osteoarthritis. Recruited through community advertising
Age: mean 68 years (SD 6) in the treatment group
Inclusion criteria: age 55 or older, body mass index less than 40 kg/m2, pain on more than half the days of the past month and during activities and radiographic evidence of OA
Exclusion criteria: medical condition that precluded safe participation in an exercise program or was more limiting than OA, inflammatory OA, or had participated in any regular exercise program in the last 6 months

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 2 functional exercises (squats and step‐ups), 5 LL isotonic exercises
Equipment: velcro ankle weights (isotonic ex only)
Intensity: initially low (3‐5 on Borg scale), progressed to 8 ("hard" on Borg scale)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/ sets: 12/2
Program duration: 16 weeks
Setting: home‐based
Supervision: low (12 visits over 16 weeks)
Adherence: 84% (SD 27) of sessions
2. Control: given nutrition info, 7 home visits over 16 weeks, kept food logs 3/14 days

Outcomes

Primary: WOMAC pain and physical function subscales, SF‐36
Secondary: Strength (1RM), clinical knee exam, nutrition, physical performance (stair climb, chair stand time)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Balagopal 2001

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: not reported
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 20
Sample: healthy older people
Age: mean 71 years (SD 1)
Inclusion criteria: older people aged 65‐79, healthy (based on physical exam and blood tests)
Exclusion criteria: subjects who exercised regularly for > or = 2 days per week, women taking hormone replacement

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 4UL, 3LL
Equipment: resistance training machines
Intensity: 50‐80% 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/ sets: 8/3
Duration: 3 months
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: not reported

Outcomes

Muscle strength (1RM)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Ballor 1996

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: not reported
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 18
Sample: obese, recently completed dietary program
Age: mean 61 years (SE 1)
Inclusion criteria: aged 55‐70 years, a BMI before weight loss of > 32 kg/m squared, no signs, symptoms or history of heart disease, non‐diabetic, non‐smoker, resting blood pressure <160/90 mm Hg, no symptoms that would preclude safe participation in an exercise program
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus aerobic
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 4UL, 3LL
Equipment: machines (Universal Gym)
Intensity: 50‐80% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/ sets: 8/3
Program duration: 12 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Aerobic Training Group: exercised 3 times per week on a motorised treadmill at approximately 50% of maximum aerobic uptake for 20‐60 minutes per session

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Aerobic capacity
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Barrett 2002

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: a computer generalized list
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: yes
Loss to follow‐up: 4/44
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes for primary, no for secondary measures
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Australia
N = 40 (20 in each group)
Sample: healthy elderly
Age: mean 66.6 years
Inclusion criteria: not reported
Exclusion criteria: if participants general practitioners recommended against participation for health reasons or if for any reason they were unable to participate in a class situation

Interventions

PRT versus control (flexibility training)
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 6UL/6LL
Equipment: free weights
Intensity: based on perceived exertion scale "hard" to "very hard"
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: 8 reps/1 to 2 sets at the first two sessions; then 8 reps/2 to 3 sets
Duration: 10 weeks
Setting: recreational clubs (Gyms)
Supervision: full by two fitness instructors
Adherence: not reported
2. Control group (flexibility training): mainly stretch for the major muscle groups and some light cardiovascular exercise, n = 22, mean age = 69.6 years

Outcomes

Primary: SF‐36
Secondary: muscle strength (force‐N/weight‐N), sit to stand (seconds)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Data from PRT and flexibility training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Baum 2003

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: a computer generated algorithm stratified by the location of the facility
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 1/11 in PRT group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 20 (11 in PRT)
Sample: frail older adults living in long‐term care facility
Age: mean 88 years
Inclusion criteria: age greater than 65, residence at the facility longer than 3 months, and the ability to ambulate alone, with assistive devises or one caregiver
Exclusion criteria: unstable acute illness or chronic illness; an inability to follow a two‐step command; and assaultive behavior pattern; or unwilling to discontinue any current physical therapy

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5LL
Equipment: soft ankle or wrist weights, therabands, weighted ball
Intensity: increased every week
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/ sets: increased from 5/1 to 10/2
Duration: 1 year (after 6 months the two groups switched program. the results extracted at the end of the first 6 months)
Setting: not reported, (Gym in the facility?)
Supervision: full by an exercise physiologist
Adherence: (80%‐Ex group; 56%‐control)
2. Control group: did activities such as painting, drawing, or puzzles with an art therapist or social worker, 3 times a week

Outcomes

Primary: FIM, physical performance test
Secondary: TUAG, Berg balance scale
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Means and SDs at 12 months were not reported. Portion results at 6 months could be estimated from baseline score and change score. Because of small sample size, the precision is questionable.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Bean 2004

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 1/10 in the control group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 21 (11 in PRT)
Sample: community dwelling older females (with physical performance limitations??)
Age: mean 77.1 years (SD = 5.7)
Inclusion criteria: female sex, age of 70 and older, and a score between four and 10 on the Short Physical Performance Battery
Exclusion criteria: unstable acute or chronic medical conditions, a score less than 23 on the MMSE, or a neuromusculoskeletal condition interfering with exercise participation

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 2UL/4LL with fast concentric phase
Equipment: weighted vest
Intensity: increased to the next level (increase 2% of the subject's baseline body mass) after 10 reps/3 sets
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: research center (Gym?)
Supervision: full
Adherence: 88 to 90 %
2. Control group: slow velocity and low resistance exercise with body or limb weight, 3 times a week

Outcomes

Primary: Short Physical Performance Battery (including chair rise)
Secondary: Muscle strength
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Post mean = baseline + change score; baseline SD was used

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Beneka 2005

Methods

RCT with 4 groups: low intensity, medium intensity and high intensity and control group
Method of randomisation: not reported, stratified by gender
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: no
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Greece
N = 16 for each group (Control, LI, MI, & HI)
Sample: healthy but inactive elderly
Age: male‐mean 70 years; female‐mean 67 years
Inclusion criteria: inactive prior to the study, no anaemia, hepatic complications, thyroid disorders, and kidney problems
Exclusion criteria: hypertension or taking anti‐hypertensive medication, didn't pass diagnostic treadmill test, didn't pass physician's screen

Interventions

PRT (low intensity, medium intensity, and high intensity) versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 3 LL
Equipment: Universal machines
Intensity: LI‐50% of 1 RM; MI‐70% of 1 RM; HI‐90% of 1 RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/ sets: LI ‐12 to 14/3 ; MI‐8 to 10 /3; HI‐4 to 6 /3
Duration: 16 weeks
Setting: not reported (Gym?)
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: not reported
2. Control group: no training

Outcomes

Muscle strength
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Results from males were extracted
Comparisons: low intensity versus high intensity, and high intensity versus control

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Bermon 1999

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 1
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: France
N = 32
Sample: healthy older people
Age: mean 70 years
Inclusion criteria: elderly adults, free of cardiorespiratory and neurological diseases, sedentary to moderately active, passed screening procedure including medical history and physical examination
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 1UL, 2LL
Equipment: weight machine (Marcy Vertex II)
Intensity: (80% of 1RM)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/ sets: 8/3
Program duration: 8 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: asked to maintain customary activities and dietary patterns

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Anthropometry
Hormones
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Boshuizen 2005

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 18 in total (2 in high‐guidance group, 10 in medium‐guidance group, and 5 in controls, 1 was not mentioned)
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Netherlands
N = 46 (24 in high‐guidance group; 22 in control)
Sample: experiencing difficulty in chair rising
Age: mean = 80 years (SD = 6.7)
Inclusion criteria: experiencing difficulty in chair rising
Exclusion criteria: with a maximum knee‐extensor torque of both legs exceeding 25 kg force; self‐reported diseases that would be adversely affected by the exercises

Interventions

PRT Group (high‐guidance) versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex : LLs
Equipment: elastic bands
Intensity: increased to the next level after 8 reps/3sets
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/ sets: 8/3
Duration: 10 weeks
Setting: welfare centers (Gym?)
Supervision: two supervised sessions/week by two physical therapists and one unsupervised home session/week
Adherence: 73% at group sessions and 90% at home sessions
2.Control group: no exercise training

Outcomes

Primary: disability measure (Groningen Activity Restriction Scale)
Secondary: muscle strength, timed walk, TUAG, balance test
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Brandon 2000

Methods

RCT
BUT some changing of groups allowed before intervention began (husband/wives or people sharing rides changed groups)
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: not reported
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 85
Sample: healthy older adults, participants in community activities
Age: mean 72 years
Inclusion criteria: "community‐dwelling older adults", no symptoms of cardiovascular disease, consent from physician,
Exclusion criteria: depression (according to Beck Inventory), MMSE > 19, contraindications on submaximal aerobic test

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 3LL
Equipment: Nautilaus machines
Intensity: moderate‐high (50‐70% of 1RM)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/ sets: 8‐12/3
Duration: 4 months
Setting: gym‐based
Supervision: full
Adherence: 95%
2. Control Group: no intervention

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Physical Performance Test (PPT)‐including chair rise performance
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Brandon 2003

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 13/29 in the PRT group; 8/23 in the control group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 52 (29 in PRT)
Sample: community dwelling, diabetes
Age: mean 65.8 years (SD =7.6)
Inclusion criteria: not reported
Exclusion criteria: elevated blood glucose, depression, altered cognitive function, cardiovascular diseases, strokes, and hypertension

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5LL
Equipment: Nautilus machine
Intensity: (50%, 60%, and 70% for set 1, 2, and 3 separately)
Frequency: Ex3 during the first 6 months, and Ex2 from month 7 to 24
Reps/Sets: 8‐12 /3
Duration: 24 months
Setting: not reported, (Gym?)
Supervision: full
Adherence: > 85%
2. Control group: no training

Outcomes

Muscle strength (1RM/body weight)
TUAG
50‐foot walk
Walk up and down stairs
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Brochu 2002

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: stratified by physical function scores of SF‐36
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 5/30
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 30 (15 in each group)
Sample: disabled women with CHD
Age: mean 70.5 years (SD = 4)
Inclusion criteria: age > 65 years SF‐36 physical function < 85 Had definite CHD
Exclusion criteria: hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome within 6 months, very low threshold angina, exercise‐test limiting noncardiac comorbility, uncontrolled BP, sternal nonunion after coronary surgery, recent participation in a cardiac rehabilitation program, inflammatory arthritis, and dementia

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5UL, 3LL
Equipment: Universal weights and dumbbells
Intensity: high (80% of 1RM)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/2
Duration: 24 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: required to be 75%
2. Control Group: 30 to 40 minutes of stretching, calisthenics, light yoga, and deep‐breathing progressive relaxation exercise

Outcomes

Primary: CS physical performance test , SF‐36
Secondary: strength (1 RM), peak V02, 6‐minute walk
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Bruunsgaard 2004

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 18 (39 enrolled)
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Demark
N = 21 (10 in PRT)
Sample: frail nursing home residents
Age: mean 88.6 years‐PRT, 90.6 years‐control
Inclusion criteria: not reported
Exclusion criteria: acute illness, hypertension, severe cardiovascular disease, moderate/severe cognitive impairment, severe impairment of motor function, and neurological disorder

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 2 LL
Equipment: training chair (Quadriceps Exercise Table)
Intensity: 50% to 80% of 1 RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: nursing home facility (Gym?)
Supervision: full by a physiotherapist
Adherence: 84% for the PRT group, 97% for the control group
2. Control group: social activities, twice a week by an occupational therapist

Outcomes

Muscle strength (1 RM)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Buchner 1997

Methods

RCT: with four groups: strength training alone, endurance training alone, strength and endurance training and control group
Method of randomisation: variation of randomly permuted blocks
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 4 (from PRT/control)
Intention to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: exercisers assessed at 9 months, all participants monitored for falls for median 1.42 years (max 2.35 years)

Participants

Location: USA
N = 105 total (55 in PRT vs control)
Sample: older people with muscle weakness, recruited from primary care physicians in a HMO
Age: mean 75 years
Inclusion criteria: between 68 and 85 years of age; unable to do an eight‐step tandem gait without errors; below the 50th percentile in knee extensor strength for the subject's height and weight
Exclusion criteria: active cardiovascular, pulmonary, vestibular and bone diseases; positive cardiac stress test; body weight >180% of ideal; major psychiatric illness; active metabolic diseases; chronic anemia; amputation; chronic neurological or muscle disease; inability to walk; dependency in eating, dressing transfer or bathing; inability to speak English or fill out written forms

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex : 2UL, 9LL, 1Tr
Equipment: machines (Cybex)
Intensity: high (set 1: 50‐60% of 1RM; set 2: 75% of 1RM)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/2
Program Duration: 24‐26 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported

Adherence: 95% excluding drop‐outs; 81% including drop‐outs
2. Control Group: maintained usual activity levels, allowed to join exercise program after 6 months

Outcomes

Aerobic capacity
Strength (isokinetic)
Balance
Gait
SF‐36
Sickness Impact Profile
Lawton IADL scale
Stair climbing
Falls
Health care use
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Data from PRT and control group were compared
Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Casaburi 2004

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 1/12‐Tx, 1/12‐Control
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N=24 (12 for each group)
Sample: people with COPD
Age: mean 68.9 years (SD=9.8)
Inclusion criteria: age 55 to 80 years, FEV1 of 60% predicted or less, and FEV1 to vital capacity ratio of 60% or less. Screening serum testosterone was 400 ng/dl or less
Exclusion criteria: significant cardiovascular or orthopedic impairments, body weight of less than 75% or more than 130% of ideal, symptomatic benign prostatic hypertrophy, prostate cancer history, serum prostate specific antigen of more than 4 ?g/L, or hemoglobin of more than 16 ug/dl.

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5 LL with eumetabolic diet
Equipment: not reported
Intensity: first 4 weeks, 60% of 1RM then increased to 80% of 1 RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: first 4 weeks, 12/3 then increased to 8‐10 /4
Duration: 10 weeks
Setting: not reported
Supervision: full by an exercise trainer
Adherence: at least 25 of 30 scheduled sessions
2. Control Group: no training

Outcomes

Muscle strength
VO2max
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Castaneda 2001

Methods

RCT both groups were also on a low‐protein diet (run‐in period for 6 weeks to evaluate this); comparison was between low‐protein diet alone or low‐protein diet plus resistance training
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: blind for all assessments except strength
Participant blinding: yes, sham‐exercises
Loss to follow‐up: no
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: not stated
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 26
Sample: patients with moderate chronic renal insufficiency, recruited from nephrology clinics
Age: mean 65 years (SD 9)
Inclusion criteria: older than 50 years of age; serum creatinine concentrations between 133‐422 umol/L (1.5 and 5.0 mg/dL); physician approval to follow a low protein diet; nephrologist confirmed diagnosis of chronic renal insufficiency
Exclusion criteria: myocardial infarction within the last 6 months; any unstable chronic condition; dementia; alcoholism; dialysis or previous renal; current resistance training; recent involuntary weight change (+/‐ 2kg); albumin level less than 30g/L; proteinuria greater than 10g/d; abnormal stress test on screening

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT plus low‐protein diet
Type of Ex: 2UL, 3LL
Equipment: machines (Keiser)
Intensity: 80% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: gym at research centre
Supervision: full
Adherence: 91%
2. Control Group: on low‐protein diet; performed 5‐8 sham exercises (gentle movements while standing sitting and bending) for upper and lower body

Outcomes

Strength (1RM),
Peak oxygen consumption
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Castaneda 2004

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: yes
Loss to follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 26 (14 in PRT)
Sample: chronic kidney disease but not on dialysis therapy
Age: mean 65 years (SD = 9)
Inclusion criteria: older than 50 years old with moderately severe chronic kidney disease and not on dialysis therapy, serum creatinine concentrations from 1.5 to 5.0 mg/dL and to be able to take a low protein diet
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex : 2UL/3 LL
Equipment: Keiser Sports Health Equipments
Intensity: 80% of 1 RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: research center (Gym?)
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2.Control group: stretching and flexibility exercise

Outcomes

Muscle strength (1 RM)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Reported whole body muscle strength (data were not pooled)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Chandler 1998

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: block randomised and stratified by 2 levels of functioning
Assessor blinding: some measures
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 13
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow‐up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 100
Sample: community‐dwelling older people with functional limitations
Age: mean 77.6 years
Inclusion criteria: community‐dwelling; aged 64 or above; unable to descend stairs step over step without holding onto the railing
Exclusion criteria: > or = 3 on Reuben's Advanced Activities of Daily Living; terminal illness (i.e. not expected to survive 6 months); severe unstable cardiac disease including MI in the past 6 months; severe fixed or progressive neurologic disease; complete blindness; lower extremity amputation; score below 18 on MM SE and unable to follow a 3‐step command

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 8LL
Equipment: Theraband
Intensity: progressively increased (8 RM to 2 sets of 10RM)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/2
Duration:10 weeks
Setting: home‐based
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: could begin exercise after 10 weeks, one friendly phone call at 5 weeks

Outcomes

HRQoL (SF‐36)
Lower limb strength (Cybex)
6‐minute walk test
Chair rise
Functional reach
Falls Self‐Efficacy (/100)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B‐ Unclear
Charette 1991

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding : no
Loss to follow‐up: 8
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow‐up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 27
Sample: healthy, sedentary women
Age: mean 69 years
Inclusion criteria: aged 64‐86; healthy; female, Palo Alto community
Exclusion criteria: pre‐existing disability or illness that would preclude participation in a weight training program of moderate intensity

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 7LL
Equipment: weight training machines
Intensity: 65‐75% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 6/3, increased to 6 sets for leg extension and press after 2 weeks
Program Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: 90% completed all sessions
2. Control Group: maintain normal activities, asked not to start an exercise program. Could undertake training at the end of the program. Contacted to make appointments/ maintain interest.

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Chin A Paw 2006

Methods

RCT with 4 groups: PRT, control, functional training, and combined training
Method of randomisation: the random allocation sequence was generated by computer by two independent students
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 21/57 in PRT; 22/60 in function‐skills; 17/56 in combined training; 23/51 in controls
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes. Data analysed: 40 in PRT, 44 in function‐skills, 44 in combined training, 31 in controls
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Netherlands
N = 108 (57 in PRT)
Sample: elders lived in long‐term care facilities
Age: mean 81.3 (SD = 4.4)
Inclusion criteria: 1) aged 65 or older; 2) living in a nursing home or residential care facility; 3) able to walk 6 m or more (with or without a walking aid); 4) able to comprehend the study procedures; 5) no medical contraindication for study participation; 6) no rapidly progressive or terminal illness; 7) and not moving away from the home within the 6‐months intervention period
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control, versus functional training, and versus combined training
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 3UL/2LL
Equipment: TechnoGym equipment, dump bells and ankle/wrist weights
Intensity: high (60‐80% of 1 RM)
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: 8‐12/2
Duration: 24 weeks
Setting: long‐term care facility (Gym?)
Supervision: full by a physical therapist and an assistant
Adherence: 78 %
2.Control group: mean age =81, educational program (group discussion about topics of interest)
3. Functional training group: N=60, mean age = 82 years, game‐like or cooperative activities
4. Combined training group: N=56, mean age = 81 years, one strength training and one functional training per week

Outcomes

Primary: physical activities/ADL disability
Secondary: muscle strength, vitality plus scales, balance, gait speed, chair rise
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Comparisons: PRT versus control, PRT versus functional training

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Collier 1997

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 1
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 39
Sample: healthy, community‐dwelling
Age: range 65‐85 years
Inclusion criteria: aged 65‐85, approval of physician, community residents
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5UL, 2LL
Equipment: Universal Hercules Gym Machine
Intensity: not specified, but progressed throughout
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/2
Program Duration: 10 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: no active intervention

Outcomes

Strength (number of reps at % of body weight)
Functional Fitness Assessment for adults >60
Agility Assessment (walking between cones)
Hand‐eye co‐ordination ("soda pop" test)
Grip strength
Physical Self‐Efficacy Scale (PSE)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Damush 1999

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no, attention control group used
Loss to follow‐up: 9
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 71
Sample: community‐dwelling women, recruited through media‐based promotion
Age: mean 68 years (SD 5.6)
Inclusion criteria: age 55+, living in retirement residential community, clearance from GP
Exclusion criteria: GP‐identified contraindications to exercise

Interventions

PRT versus control
1.PRT
Type of Ex: 4UL, 3LL
Equipment: Theraband
Intensity: low to moderate (4/10 on Borg scale)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 1 set, as many reps to reach 4/10 on Borg
Program Duration: 8 weeks
Setting: gym, group‐based
Supervision: full
Adherence: 88%
2. Control Group: attended all of the exercise sessions to allow social contact

Outcomes

HRQoL (SF‐36)
Strength (3RM)
Grip strength
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
de Vos 2005

Methods

RCT with 4 groups: high intensity, medium intensity, and low intensity, and control
Method of randomisation: computerized randomisation program, stratified by gender
Assessor blinding: only for tests at baseline
Participant blinding: blinded to the research hypothesis
Loss to follow‐up: 12 (4‐high intensity, 3‐medium intensity, 3‐low intensity, 2‐control)
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Australia
N = 28‐HI; N = 28‐MI; N = 28‐LI; N = 28‐control
Sample: independent living older adults
Age: mean 69 years
Inclusion criteria: > 60 years old, living independently in the community, willingness to be randomised and to commit to the study requirements
Exclusion criteria: participation in resistance/power training in the last 6 months, acute or terminal illness, had myocardial infarction in the past 6 months, unstable disease or physical status would interfere with exercise, limb amputation/fraction in the past 3 months, currently symptomatic hernias or hemorrhoids, or cognitive impairment.

Interventions

PRT (high intensity, medium intensity, and low intensity) versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: rapid concentric and slow eccentric
Equipment: Keiser machines
Intensity: high (80% of 1RM), medium (50% of 1 RM), low (20% of 1RM)
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: 8‐12 weeks (M = 10 weeks)
Setting: not reported
Supervision: Experienced exercise trainers
Adherence: > 90% for each training group
2. Control Group: maintain current level of activities

Outcomes

Dynamic muscle strength
Muscle power
Muscle endurance
Balance
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Involved power training

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
de Vreede 2007

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRT, control, and functional task exercise group
Method of randomisation: by computer using a random numbers table
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 6/34 in PRT group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Netherlands
N = 65 (34 in PRT)
Sample: community‐dwelling older adults
Age: mean 74.8 years (SD = 4)
Inclusion Criteria: age over 70 years
Exclusion Criteria: recent fractures, unstable cardiovascular or metabolic disease, musculoskeletal condition or chronic illness, severe airflow obstruction, recent depression or emotional distress, loss of mobility for more than one week in the previous months, exercised at a sports club more than 3 times a week

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus functional task exercise
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5UL, 9LL
Equipment: weights, elastic tub
Intensity: 7‐8 on a 10‐point rated perceived exertion scale
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/3
Duration:12 weeks
Setting: a local leisure center
Supervision: at least two experienced instructors
Adherence: 74% (SD = 34.6%)
2. Control Group: to keep normal activity level
3. Functional task exercise group: N = 33, moving with a vertical component, moving with a horizontal component, carrying an object, and changing position between lying, sitting, and standing. Practice phase for 2 weeks, variation phase for 4 weeks, and daily tasks for 6 weeks

Outcomes

Primary: SF‐36
Secondary: TUAG
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Data of SF‐36 were provided by the trial authors
Data from PRT and functional training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
DeBeliso 2005

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported‐stratified by gender and strength
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 8/21 in control; 5/18 in fixed repetition group; 4/21 in periodised group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 18‐fixed repetition; N = 21‐periodised repetition; N = 21‐control
Sample: independent and community dwelling older adults
Age: fixed repetition, mean 71.4 years (SD = 5.4); periodised, mean = 70.6 years (SD = 4.7)
Inclusion Criteria: no previous background in resistance training
Exclusion Criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT (fixed repetition and periodised repetition) versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5UL/3LL
Equipment: Flex machines
Intensity: fixed repetition‐9 RM; periodised‐week 1 to 6, 15 RM; week 7 to 12, 9 RM; week 13 to 18, 6 RM
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: fixed repetition‐9/3; periodised‐week 1 to 6, 15/2; week 7 to 12, 9/3; week 13 to 18, 6/4
Duration: 18 weeks
Setting: training facility (Gym?)
Supervision: full by trainers
Adherence: fixed repetition group 77%; periodised group 62%
2. Control group: maintain current recreational activities

Outcomes

Muscle strength (1 RM)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
DiFrancisco 2007

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: a table of random numbers
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 9 for each group
Sample: see below
Age: mean = 77.3 years (SD = 0.7)
Inclusion criteria: convenience sample from Academic Health Care Center
Exclusion criteria: participated in a strength‐training programme within 6 months, pre‐existing orthopaedic complications that would have affected any of the exercise, cardiac and respiratory conditions

Interventions

PRT (once a week versus twice a week)
Type of Ex: 3UL/ 3LL
Equipment: Cybex machines
Intensity: high (75% of 1RM)
Frequency: Ex2 versus Ex1
Reps/Sets: 10‐15 /1 for each exercise
Duration: 9 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: not reported

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Date from 2 times a week and one time a week were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Donald 2000

Methods

RCT, factorial design (comparison of floor surface types not included here)
Method of randomisation: randomised envelopes
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 22
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: UK
N = 58
Sample: hospitalised older people
Age: mean 81 years
Inclusion criteria: admitted to elderly care rehabilitation ward from Feb to Sept 1996, consent from patient and carers
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 2 LL
Equipment: not reported
Intensity: high (maximum weight the patient could manage)
Frequency: twice daily
Reps/Sets: 10/3
Program duration: not reported (length of hospital stay)
Setting: hospital
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: regular in‐hospital daily physiotherapy

Outcomes

Falls (during hospital stay)
Barthel Index (ADL measure)
Strength (hand‐held dynamometer, hand‐grip strength)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Earles 2001

Methods

RCT, PRT vs moderate aerobic exercise
Method of randomisation: randomised, with subjects blocked for gender and residence
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to Follow‐up: 3
Intention‐to‐treat analyses: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 43
Sample: independent community volunteers
Age: mean 77 years (SD 5) in PRT group
Inclusion criteria: age greater than 70 years; score of 8 or higher on the Short Physical Performance Battery; ability to travel (by using public or private transportation) to the retirement community where exercise sessions were held; willingness to attend exercise sessions for 12 weeks
Exclusion criteria: myocardial infarction in the past 6 months; heart failure (New York Heart Association classification <1); angina with moderate activity; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or shortness of breath while walking at a normal pace; stroke with residual motor deficits; poorly controlled hypertension (>174mmHg systolic, >100mmHg diastolic); cancer with chemotherapy or radiation in the past year; physical performance limited by arthritis; on any of the following medications: neuroleptics, oral steroids, testosterone or growth hormones

Interventions

PRT versus aerobic
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 2 LL; also did step‐ups, chair rises and plantar flexion exercises in standing
Equipment: Pneumatic resistance machines
Intensity: high for leg press‐ started at 50% of 1RM, increased by 10% during each week of training; moderate for other exercises
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/3
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: gym at retirement center
Supervision: full
Adherence: 90%
2. Aerobic training group: moderate intensity exercise 30 minutes daily, 6 days weekly

Outcomes

Short physical performance battery (SPPB)
Balance (semi‐tandem stance, single leg stance)
Chair rise (5)
8‐foot walk
Aerobic capacity (6‐minute walk)
Muscle strength
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B‐ Unclear
Ettinger 1997

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRT, aerobic training and health education (attention control)
Method of randomisation: stratified, variable block randomisation, computer generated
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: attention control group used
Loss to follow‐up: 75 total (48 from PRT and control group) at 18 months
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: participants followed after initial supervised sessions (3 months) to home‐based sessions (3 ‐18 months)

Participants

Location: USA
N = 439 total (295 in PRT versus control)
Sample: community‐dwelling people with osteoarthritis resulting in functional limitation
Age: mean 68 years (SD 6) in PRT group
Inclusion criteria: age 60 years or more, pain on most days in 1 or more knees, difficulty with at least 1 of the following due to knee pain: walking a quarter mile, climbing stairs, getting in and out of a car, lifting and carrying groceries, getting out of bed, getting out of the bathtub or performing shopping, cleaning or self‐care activities; radiographic evidence of knee osteoarthritis in the tibial‐femoral compartment.
Exclusion criteria: person has a medical condition that precluded safe participation in the exercise program or prevented completion of the study (myocardial infarction or stroke in the past 3 months, evidence of ischemia during the exercise treadmill test, congestive heart failure, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, active treatment for cancer, insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, hemoglobin less than 110g/L, creatinine greater than 176.8 umol/L, severe systemic disease or major psychiatric disease), inflammatory arthritis (i.e., rheumatoid or psoriatic), exercised regularly (defined as aerobic activity or resistance training more than 1 time per week for 20 minutes or longer), planned to move from the area or be admitted to a long‐term care facility in the next 2 years; unable to walk at least 420 feet in 6 minutes without a cane or assistive device; unable to walk on a treadmill without an assistive device; participating in another research study; resided in a long‐term care facility

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus aerobic
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 4UL, 4LL, 1Tr
Equipment: cuff‐weights, dumb bells
Intensity: moderate to high (2 sets of 12 reps max)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 12/2
Duration: 78 weeks
Setting: facility‐based group for 3 months, then home‐ based for 15 months
Supervision: high for gym‐based, telephone contact and visits during home based phase (diminishing contact over time)
Adherence: 70% at 18 months
2. Control Group: health education program (meetings and telephone contact)
3. Aerobic Training Group: walking program for 40 minutes 3 times per week at 50‐70% of HR reserve group facility based for 3 months then home‐based for 15 months (same contact as PRT)

Outcomes

Primary: self‐report physical disability (23 item scale developed for use in this trial)
Secondary: 6 minute walk test, stair climbing, lifting object, timed task in and out of car, graded submaximal aerobic treadmill test, strength (isokinetic dynamometer), knee x‐rays, knee pain
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Fahlman 2002

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRT, control, and aerobic group
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: N/A
Post‐program follow‐up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 30 (15 in each group)
Sample: highly active and functioning women
Age: mean 73 years (SD = 3)
Inclusion criteria: not reported
Exclusion criteria: dementia screened by MMSE, did not meet the criteria of the American College of Sports Medicine, the presence of activity‐limiting arthritis; being bedridden within 3 months of the study; the presence of central or peripheral nervous system disorders, stroke, acute or chronic infection, major affective disorder, human immunodeficiency virus infection or autoimmune disorders, or metabolic disorders (type I diabetes mellitus); being a smoker or smokeless tobacco user; participating in regular aerobic or resistance training within the previous 3 months; using oral steroids or medications known to have an effect on blood lipids except hormone replacement therapy; having surgery within the previous 3 months; and consuming caffeine in excess of the equivalent of 4 cups of coffee per day.

Interventions

PRT versus control and aerobic
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 7 LL
Equipment: not reported
Intensity: 8RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: 10 weeks
Setting: not reported
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: > 95 %
2. Control Group: maintain normal activity level
3. Aerobic training group: stretching and walking exercise at 70% heart rate reserve, duration increased from 20 minutes to 30 minutes through out the program

Outcomes

Muscle strength (1RM)
1‐minet walk (no data available for the PRT group)
VO2 max
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Comparisions: PRT versus control, and PRT versus aerobic

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Fatouros 2002

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRT, control, and aerobic group
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow‐up: no

Participants

Location: Greece
N = 8 in each group
Sample: inactive elder men
Age: mean 71.8 years (SD = 2.5)
Inclusion criteria: completely inactive prior to the study, VO2 max below 25 ml/kg/min, no anemia, hepatic complications, thyroid disorders or kidney problems, normal blood pressure
Exclusion criteria: respiratory complications or BP > 240/110 mmHg during the exercise test

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus aerobic (cardiovascular training)
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5 UL/3 LL
Equipment: Universal resistance exercise machines
Intensity: Week 1‐4 (55%‐60% of 1 RM); Week 5‐8 (60%‐70% of 1 RM); week 9‐12 (70%‐80% of 1 RM); week 13‐16 (80% of 1 RM)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: Week 1‐4 (12‐14/2); Week 5‐8 (10‐12/3); week 9‐12 (8‐10/3); week 13‐16 (8/3)
Duration: 16 weeks
Setting: not reported
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: required the participants not miss more than 4 training sessions,
2. Control Group: no exercise
3. Cardiovascular training group: walking, jogging on a treadmill, the intensity was increased through out the training

Outcomes

Muscle strength (1 RM)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Fatouros 2005

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: high intensity PRT, low intensity PRT, and control
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: not reported
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: N/A
Post‐program follow‐up: yes

Participants

Location: Greece
N = 18 (LI); N = 20 (HI); N = 14 (control)
Sample: inactive older adults
Age: HI‐mean 72.4 years (SD = 3.5); LI‐mean 70.3 years (SD = 4.4)
Inclusion criteria: at least 65 years of age, inactive before the study, free from health problems and potentially damaging orthopedic, neuromuscular, metabolic, and cardiovascular limitations
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT (high intensity and low intensity) versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5 UL/3LL
Equipment: Universal machines
Intensity: low‐ 55% of 1RM; high‐ 82% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: low intensity: 14‐16/2 (after week 8, 3 sets), high intensity: 6‐8 /2 (after week 8, 3 sets)
Duration: 24 weeks
Setting: not reported
Supervision: Full
Adherence: 98%
2. Control Group: not reported

Outcomes

Muscle strength
VO2max
TUAG
Step climbing
50‐feet walk
Comments on adverse comments: yes

Notes

Data from high intensity and low intensity PRT group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Fiatarone 1994

Methods

RCT, factorial design (comparison of nutritional supplements versus placebo not considered here)
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: for some assessments, not for all
Participant blinding: no, but recreational activities offered to control group (? quantity)
Loss to follow‐up: 6 total (4 in PRT and control groups)
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: falls monitored median 1.53 years, max 4.11 years

Participants

Location: USA
N = 51 in PRT vs control
Sample: residents of a long term care facility for older people
Age: mean 87.1 years (SE 0.6)
Inclusion criteria: residential status, age over 70 years, ability to walk 6m
Exclusion criteria: severe cognitive impairment; rapidly progressive or terminal illness, acute illness or unstable chronic illness; myocardial infarction; fracture of a lower extremity within the six months before the study; insulin dependent diabetes mellitus; on a weight‐loss diet or undergoing resistance training at the time of enrolment; tests of muscle strength revealed a musculoskeletal or cardiovascular abnormality

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 2LL
Equipment: weight training machines
Intensity: high (80% of 1RM)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/sets: 8/3
Program duration: 10 weeks
Setting: nursing home
Supervision: full
Adherence: 97%
2. Control Group: engaged in 3 activities of their choice offered by recreational therapy

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Gait speed
Stair climbing power
Anthropometric measurements
Physical activity (leg monitors)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Fiatarone 1997

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no, but control group received weekly phone calls
Loss to follow‐up: 4
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 34
Sample: frail older people
Age: mean 82 years
Inclusion criteria: community dwelling older people, moderate to severe functional impairment
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 11 total to UL and LL
Equipment: arm and leg weights
Intensity: high
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: not reported
Program Duration: 16 weeks
Setting: home‐based
Supervision: low ‐ 2 weeks of home instruction, then phone calls
Adherence: 90%
2. Control Group: weekly phone calls

Outcomes

Strength
Gait velocity
Self‐reported activity level
Attitude towards Ageing on the PGC Morale Scale
Bed days
Falls
Health care visits
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Fielding 2002

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 3/15 in high velocity group, 2/15 in low velocity group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 30 (15 in high velocity, 15 in low velocity)
Sample: community dwelling elderly with self reported disability
Age: high velocity‐mean 73.2 years (SD = 1.2); low velocity‐mean 72.1 years (SD = 1.3)
Inclusion criteria: at least of 65 years of age, community dwelling, could walk with or without an assistive device, reported 2 or more deficits on the physical function subscale of SF‐36
Exclusion criteria: acute or terminal illness, myocardial infarction in the past 6 months, unstable cardiovascular disease or other medical condition, upper extremities or lower extremities fractures in the past 6 months, amputations, cognitive impairments, current participations in regular exercise sessions, and unwilling to be randomised

Interventions

PRT (high velocity versus low velocity)
Type of Ex: 2LL, leg press & knee extension
Equipment: machines (Keiser pneumatic resistance training equipment)
Intensity: high velocity group‐70% of 1 RM, extension as fast as possible during concentric phase, then maintain full extension for 1 second, and eccentric phase of each repetition over 2 seconds; low velocity group‐ extension concentric phase, maintain full extension, and eccentric phase of each repetition 2, 1, 2 seconds
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: 16 weeks
Setting: human physiology lab
Supervision: exercise trainers
Adherence: 95% for high velocity group, 94% for low velocity group

Outcomes

Muscle strength
Chair rise
Stair climbing
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

No reported results can be pooled (missing M and SD for each group)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Flynn 1999

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: not reported
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 29
Sample: healthy older women
Age: mean 73 years
Inclusion criteria: older community‐dwelling women
Exclusion criteria: dementia, exclusion criteria of the American College of Sports Medicine, arthritis, bedridden within 3 months of the study, central or peripheral nervous system disorders, stroke, use of anti‐depressant medications, acute or chronic infection, major affective disorder, human immunodeficiency virus infection or autoimmune disorders, metabolic disorders (type I diabetes mellitus), oral steroid use, cigarette or smokeless tobacco use, regular aerobic or resistance training within previous 3 months, surgery within the previous 3 months, caffeine consumption in excess of four cups of coffee per day, adequate flexibility and mobility (screened with performance tests)

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 8 LL
Equipment: not reported
Intensity: high (70‐80% of 1RM)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/sets: 8/3
Duration: 10 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: asked to maintain their normal activity level

Outcomes

Strength (1RM ‐ ? data collected for controls)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Foley 2003

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: a computer generated randomisation list generated by person external to the study as was managed by an external department
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 3/35 in the gym group, 3/35 in the control group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Australia
N = 70 (35 in each group)
Sample: community living adults with OA of the hip or knee
Age: mean 69.8 years (SD = 9.2)
Inclusion criteria: read, write, and speak English, could give informed consent, and provide transport to attend the training sessions
Exclusion criteria: had received physiotherapy or hydrotherapy in the past 6 weeks, attending community exercise classes; joint replacement surgery within the past 12 months or the next 12 weeks; and cognitive impairment

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 1UE/4 LL
Equipment: weighted gaiters
Intensity: 10 RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: not reported
Duration: 6 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 75 %
2. Control Group: telephone calls to record any changes in their condition drug use or injuries

Outcomes

Primary: SF‐12, Adelaide Activities profile, WOMAC
Secondary: muscle strength, Arthritis Self‐Efficacy Questionnaire
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Frontera 2003

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: N/A
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 14 (7 in each group)
Sample: community‐dwelling healthy women
Age: mean 73.7 years (SD = 3.4)
Inclusion criteria: not involved in regular exercise
Exclusion criteria: had conditions that could interfere with neuromuscular function

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: knee extensors/flexors, each leg was trained separately
Equipment: Keiser Sports Health Equipment
Intensity: (80% of 1 RM)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/4
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: not reported
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 98%
2. Control Group: not reported

Outcomes

Muscle strength (1RM, isokinetic strength of knee extension)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Galvao 2005

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 4/16 in 1‐set PRT group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Australia
N = 16 for each group
Sample: community dwelling elderly
Age: 1‐set PRT group‐mean 68.9 years (SD=4.8); 3‐set PRT group‐mean 69.7 years (SD=4.4)
Inclusion criteria: not reported
Exclusion criteria: musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or neurological disorder; PRT in the previous 12 months, inability to undertake upper and lower limb ex. or walk less than 100 meters; unwilling to undertake 20 weeks of training

Interventions

PRT (3‐set versus 1‐set)
Type of Ex: 4UL/3LL
Equipment: Strength Fitness Equipment
Intensity: 8 RM
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: 8/3 versus 8/1
Duration: 20 weeks
Setting: not reported (Gym?)
Supervision: full
Adherence: All completed 40 training sessions (make‐up sessions were provided)

Outcomes

Muscle strength (1 RM)
Chair rise
6‐minute walk
Stair climbing
400‐m‐walk
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

3‐set PRT versus 1‐set PRT

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Hagerman 2000

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 4
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 22
Sample: untrained but physically active older men
Age: mean 63.7 years
Inclusion criteria: male, aged 60‐75, physically active but not engaged in resistance training
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 3 LL
Equipment: machines
Intensity: high (85‐90% of 1RM)
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: 6‐8/3
Program Duration: 16 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: 100%
2. Control Group: not reported

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Peak aerobic capacity
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Harris 2004

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 2/19 in LI (2 sets of 15 RM); 1/18 in HI (4 sets of 6 RM)
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N: HI = 18; LI = 19
Sample: independent community dwelling older adults
Age: HI‐ mean =69.4 years (SD = 4.4); LI‐ mean =71.4 years (SD = 4.6)
Inclusion criteria: independent and community dwelling; no previous background in resistance training
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT (high intensity versus low intensity)
Type of Ex : 3LL/5UL
Equipment: Flex machines
Intensity: HI‐6RM; LI‐15RM
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets:HI‐6 /4; LI‐15 /2
Duration: 18 weeks
Setting: not reported (Gym?)
Supervision: full by trainers
Adherence: 85.4%

Outcomes

Muscle strength
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

No numerical results for the control group
Date from high intensity PRT and low intensity PRT were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Haykowsky 2000

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: matched according to combined leg press and bench press strength scores, then randomly assigned
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 4
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Canada
N = 22
Sample: healthy older men
Age: mean 68 years (SD 3)
Inclusion criteria: aged 61‐76; no clinical evidence of cardiovascular disease or hypertension; normal resting electrocardiograms; normal electrocardiographic response to graded treadmill exercise; not requiring or using cardiovascular medications; no regular participation in endurance or RT; absence of cerebrovascular or orthopaedic disability that would limit RT
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5UL, 3LL
Equipment: machines
Intensity: 60‐80% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 3/10
Duration: 16 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 97% attended
2. Control Group: continued normal activities

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Haykowsky 2005

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRT, control, and aerobic group
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: yes for echocadiograms
Loss to follow‐up: no
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Canada
N = ? (did not report sample size for each group)
Sample: women
Age: mean = 70 years (SD = 4)
Inclusion criteria: a) no clinical evidence of cardiovascular disease; b) normal resting electrocardiogram (ECG); c) normal ECG response to graded exercise; d) no requirement or use of cardiovascular medications; e) no regular participation in AT and/or ST; and f) absence of any cerebrovascular or orthopedic disability that would limit exercise training.
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus aerobic
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 3LL/5UL
Equipment: not reported
Intensity: 50% of 1RM and increased 2.5% per week until 75% of 1 RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/2
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: not reported (Gym?)
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control group: continue normal daily activities
3. Aerobic training: cycle exercise at 60‐80% of heart rate reserve

Outcomes

Muscle strength
Absolute VO2peak
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

sample size for each group was not reported.
12 weeks of strength training is as effective as 12 weeks of aerobic training for increasing relative VO2peak, however, strength training is more effective than aerobic training for improving overall muscle strength.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Hennessey 2001

Methods

RCT trial with 4 groups: PRT alone, growth hormone treatment alone, PRT and growth hormone treatment and control. Only PRT alone and control are included in this review
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: not reported
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 16 in PRT and control
Sample: frail older people
Age: mean 71.3 years (SD 4.5)
Inclusion criteria: frail which was defined as scoring between 12 and 28 on Reuben's Physical Performance Test;
Exclusion criteria: medical conditions (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, recent fracture, carpal tunnel syndrome) that would interfere with administration of growth hormone or the performance of regular exercise 3 times per week; did not expect to spend a year in Rhode Island; their doctor convinced them not to participate for medical reasons or otherwise; unwilling to inject the drug and be randomised to exercise or no exercise

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 11 exercises (UL & LL)
Equipment: ankle and wrist weights and exercise equipment
Intensity: increased from 20% to 95% of 1 RM‐most training was at high intensity
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: 25 weeks
Setting: gym (in study facilities or local community centers)
Supervision: Full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: not reported

Outcomes

Strength (isokinetic dynamometry)
Physical Performance Test (PPT)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Hepple 1997

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to Follow‐up: 1
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Canada
N = 20
Sample: healthy older men, recruited through newspaper advertisement
Age: mean 68.3 years (se 1.1)
Inclusion criteria: male, aged 65‐74
Exclusion criteria: positive Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire, abnormal ECG or blood pressure response, musculoskeletal impairment

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus aerobic
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5LL
Equipment: cuff weights
Intensity: high (6RM)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 6/3
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: usual level of activity
3. Aerobic Training Group: intermittent walking on treadmill until pain subsided, 3 times per week

Outcomes

Peak VO2
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Hiatt 1994

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRT, walking (aerobic training) and control
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 2
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 29 (19 in PRT versus control)
Sample: people who have peripheral arterial disease and intermittent claudication
Age: mean 67 years
Inclusion criteria: intermittent claudication (disabling but stable for 3 months prior to enrolment); peripheral arterial disease
Exclusion criteria: leg pain at rest, ischemic ulceration, gangrene, unable to walk on the treadmill at a speed of at least 2mph; exercise capacity limited by symptoms of angina, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, arthritis; diabetes; vascular surgery or angioplasty in the past year

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus aerobic
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5LL
Equipment: cuff weights
Intensity: high (6RM)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 6/3
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: usual level of activity
3. Aerobic Training Group: intermittent walking on treadmill until pain subsided, 3 times per week

Outcomes

Strength (Cybex dynamometer)
Peak Vo2
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Hortobagyi 2001

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: High‐intensity PRT, Low‐intensity PRT and Control
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 3
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 30 total (20 in high‐intensity PRT versus control)
Sample: healthy older people
Age: mean 72 years (SD 4.7)
Inclusion criteria: older men and women, healthy, had not exercised more than once a week in the previous 3 years, approval of GP
Exclusion criteria: more than two risk factors for coronary artery disease; a history of falls, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, or orthopaedic or neurological conditions (i.e. stroke); took medications that cause dizziness or slow movement; smoked; had a BMI greater than 28 kg/m squared; blood pressure greater than 140/90 mmHg or a heart condition

Interventions

PRT (high intensity and low intensity) versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 1 LL
Equipment: machine
Intensity: HI ‐ 80% 1RM; LI ‐ 40% 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: HI: 4‐6/5; LI: 8‐12/5
Duration: 10 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 98%
2. Control Group: not reported

Outcomes

Force accuracy and steadiness
Maximal strength (Cybex)
Comments on adverse events: no (not identified as such)

Notes

Date from high intensity PRT and low intensity PRT were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Hruda 2003

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: in a lottery format, 2:1 ratio
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 2/20 in PRT group, 3/10 in control group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Program‐post follow up: no

Participants

Location: Canada
N = 30 (20 in PRT)
Sample: frail older adults (residents of a long‐term care facility)
Age: mean 84.9 years (SD = 4.8)
Inclusion criteria: able to follow directions and walk across the room; no recent history of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, respiratory, systemic, muscular, or uncontrolled metabolic disease
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex : LLs
Equipment: Therabands
Intensity: Increasing repetitions, sets, and speed, 20 minutes class progressed to an hour
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 4‐8/1
Duration:10 weeks
Setting: long‐term care facility
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 71%
2. Control Group: maintain usual daily activities

Outcomes

TUAG
Chair stand
6‐meter walk
Muscle strength
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Hunter 2001

Methods

RCT with people randomised to variable intensity resistance training and high‐intensity resistance training NOTE: control group participants were not randomly assigned, and are not included in this review
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 2
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 28
Sample: healthy male and female volunteers over 60
Age: mean 67.4 years in high intensity group
Inclusion criteria: normal body mass index, free of metabolic disorders or medications that might affect energy expenditure, non‐smokers, stable weight
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT (high versus variable resistance) versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5 UL, 2LL, 2 Tr
Equipment: resistance training machines
Intensity: high intensity group: 80% of 1RM; variable resistance group: 50%, 65%, 80% of 1RM across the 3 training days each week
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/2
Duration: 25 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: not randomly assigned, not included in this review

Outcomes

Strength (1RM and isometric)
Perceived exertion and HR during daily tasks
Submaximal aerobic capacity
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Date from high intensity PRT and variable intensity PRT were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Izquierdo 2004

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: N/A
Post‐program follow‐up: no

Participants

Location: Spain
N = 10 in PRT, N = 11 in endurance training
Sample: healthy men
Age: mean 64.8 years (SD = 2.6)
Inclusion criteria: had not participated in regular resistance/endurance training or competitive sports for the last 5 years
Exclusion criteria: cardiovascular, neuromuscular, arthritic, pulmonary, other debilitating diseases

Interventions

PRT versus endurance training (aerobic)
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 4LL/3UL
Equipment: resistance machines (Technogym)
Intensity: first 8 weeks, 50‐70% of 1 RM; last 8 weeks, 70‐80% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: first 8 weeks: 10‐15/3; last 8 weeks: 5‐6/3‐5
Duration: 16 weeks + 4 weeks for baseline testing
Setting: training facility
Supervision: full by researchers
Adherence: at least 90% to be considered compliant and remain in the study
2. Endurance training group: mean age =68.2 years, endurance cycling at 60 rpm, the work‐rate level was increased or decreased accordingly

Outcomes

Muscle strength (1RM‐half squat)
Cycling test
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Jette 1996

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 9
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 102
Sample: non‐disabled community‐dwelling older people
Age: mean 72 years
Inclusion criteria: non‐disabled, community dwelling, aged 65 and over; clearance from GP
Exclusion criteria: significant coronary artery disease, angina, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, cardiac surgery, or significant or new onset rhythm disturbance; neurological disorders with residual deficit; renal failure requiring dialysis; recent cancer with active chemotherapy or radiation treatment; uncontrolled hypertension, diabetes or seizure disorders; recent fracture; legal blindness; major mobility limitations; failed exercise safety evaluation (i.e. resting heart rate greater than 120 bpm, resting systolic/ diastolic great than 165/100 or less than 80/50, or failed treadmill test; English speaking; have access to a VCR or willing and able to use one provided by the study

Interventions

PRT versus control
1.PRT
Type of Ex: 10 exercises to the UL, LL and Tr
Equipment: Theraband
Intensity: low to moderate
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/1
Duration: 12‐15 weeks
Setting: home‐based
Supervision: low
Adherence: mean 58%, median 71%
2. Control Group: continued with normal activities , on a waiting list for exercises

Outcomes

Strength (Cybex isokinetic dynamometer)
Psychological well‐being (Profile of Mood States battery)
SF‐36
Comments on adverse events: no ( not identified as such)

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Jette 1999

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: randomly permuted blocks by size 4, assigned by a staff member not involved in data collection
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 15 at 6 months
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no, but 6 months of exercise

Participants

Location: USA
N = 215
Sample: older adults with disabilities
Age: PRT group mean 75.4 years (SD 7.4)
Inclusion criteria: aged 60 years or over; limitations in at least one of 9 functional areas
Exclusion criteria: medical history that contained current treatment for cancer, kidney disease requiring dialysis, recent fracture, uncontrolled diabetes or seizures, regular use of a wheelchair, current rehabilitation care, current fainting or dizzy spells, sudden loss of coordination or legal blindness or physician identified contraindications to exercise

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 11 exercises to UL, LL and Tr
Equipment: Theraband
Intensity: low‐moderate
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10 reps
Duration: 6 months
Setting: home‐based
Supervision: low
Adherence: 89%
2. Control Group: on a waiting list

Outcomes

Strength (hand‐held dynamometer)
Balance (functional reach, unilateral stance, tandem stance)
TUAG
Profile of Mood States
Sickness Impact Profile 68
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Jones 1994

Methods

RCT: (note: data reported by dominant and non‐dominant leg. Data for dominant leg used in analyses)
Method of randomisation: not stated
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 4
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 46
Sample: women from a community senior center
Age: mean 67.4 years
Inclusion criteria: female, from a community senior centre, age>60, independently ambulatory
Exclusion criteria: unstable cardiovascular disease, orthopaedic or neurological dysfunction, any other uncontrolled chronic conditions that would interfere with the safety and conduct of the training protocol

Interventions

PRT versus control
1.PRT
Type of Ex: 7 LL
Equipment: velcro leg weights
Intensity: started low, progressed to moderate
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 3 of 14 by end of program
Duration: 16 weeks
Setting: group at local community centre (2 days/week) and home (1 day/week)
Supervision: full in group, none at home
Adherence: 86‐93%
2. Control Group: no intervention ‐ contacted to monitor health and activity level

Outcomes

Strength and muscular endurance (isokinetic dynamometer)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Jubrias 2001

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRT, aerobic training and control
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: no
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 40 total (n = 26 in PRT and control)
Sample: healthy, active older people
Age: 69.2 years (SD = 0.6)
Inclusion criteria: healthy (screened with physical exam, exercise testing), physically active, not engaged in PRT or aerobic training before this study
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus aerobic
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 1LL, 2 UL
Equipment: resistance training machines
Intensity: phase 1‐60‐70% of 1RM; phase 2‐70‐85% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: phase 1: 10‐15/3; phase 2: 4‐8/ 3‐5
Duration: 24 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 94.2% attendance
2. Control Group: continued normal activities, asked not to begin PRT or aerobic training during the trial
3. Aerobic Training Group: training began at 60% heart rate reserve for 10‐20 minutes, progressed to 80‐85% HR reserve for a total of 40 minutes, three times per week

Outcomes

Muscle size
Energy and fibre properties
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Judge 1994

Methods

RCT with factorial design: PRT alone, balance training alone, PRT and balance, control
Method of randomisation: balance block design (blocks of 4 subjects)
Assessor blinding: yes
Patient blinding: no, but control group received educational sessions
Loss to follow‐up: 3 from PRT and control group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: yes, monitored for 6 months after intensive program while participants undertook tai chi. Falls monitored for median 0.88 years, max 1.86 years

Participants

Location: USA
N = 110 total (55 in PRT vs control)
Sample: ambulatory older people from voter registration list
Age: mean 80 years
Inclusion criteria: age 75 years or greater, the ability to walk without an assistive device for 8 meters, MMSE >24
Exclusion criteria: symptomatic cardiovascular disease, poorly controlled hypertension (>160/96), history or physical findings of focal neurological deficit, Parkinson disease, peripheral neuropathy of the legs, hip or knee joint replacement, hip fracture, cancer (metastatic or under active treatment), taking neuroleptic, prednisolone > 5mg/day, benzodiazepines, significant hip or knee arthritis that requires a cane for ambulation

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 6 LL
Equipment: cuff‐weights and exercise machines
Intensity: 60‐75% for exercises with machines; low to moderate for other
Frequency: 3 times per week
Reps/Sets: 3 sets to failure with machines; 13/2 with sandbags; 10/2 with body weight
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: group exercise
Supervision: full
Adherence: 82%
2. Control group: 5 education sessions
3. Balance training: 3 times per week, 45 minute sessions, one‐on‐one with exercise leader including balance platform and floor‐based exercises (eyes open and closed on different surfaces, with pertubations and base of support changes)

Outcomes

Strength (isokinetic dynamometer)
Side effects of training (musculoskeletal or neurologic complaints)
Gait velocity
Chair rise
Balance
Comments on adverse events: yes ( a priority outcome of study)

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Kalapotharakos 2005

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 1 in the high resistance group, 1 in the control group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Greece
N = 12‐ HI; N = 12‐MI; N = 11‐control
Sample: healthy, inactive but independent living older adults
Age: HI‐mean 64.6 years (SD = 5.1); MI‐mean 65.7 years (SD = 4.2)
Inclusion criteria: non smokers, free of medication, no symptoms of cardiovascular, orthopedic, or neuromuscular disease, and physically inactive before
Exclusion criteria: MMSE < 24, depression (GDS > 5)

Interventions

PRT (high intensity and moderate intensity) versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 4UL/2 LL
Equipment: Universal gym machines
Intensity: high intensity group: 80% of 1 RM; moderate intensity group: 60% of 1 RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3 for high intensity group; 15/ 3 for moderate intensity group
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: not reported
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 98.5%
2. Control Group: no exercise

Outcomes

Muscle strength (1‐RM)
6‐min walk
Chair rise
Vertical jump
1‐leg standing time,
Walking speed
Stair climb
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Kallinen 2002

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRT, control, and aerobic group
Method of randomisation: manually perform by drawing lots
Assessor blinding: No
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 4 in PRT group, 3 in endurance group (aerobic)
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes done at the 30th month
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Finland
N = 27 (16 in PRT)
Sample: elder women
Age: range 76‐78 years
Inclusion criteria: no severe diseases or functional impairments
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus aerobic (Note: participants in all groups were given 600mg calcium per day)
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 4UL, 4LL
Equipment: resistance training machines
Intensity: high ‐ completed 8RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Program Duration: 2 years
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: 74%
2. Control Group: non‐exercise group
3. Aerobic Fitness Group: N = 15; 3 sessions per week, performed same exercises as PRT group but with no resistance, plus added stationary cycling for 40 second stations

Outcomes

PeakVO2
Peak Power
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Katznelson 2006

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: by a block design
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: yes
Loss to follow‐up: 4/19‐ placebo + ex; 1/17‐ placebo only
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 26 (19 in PRT)
Sample: men with relative testosterone insufficiency, sedentary and community dwelling
Age: mean 72 years (SD = 5.4)
Inclusion criteria: a single fasting serum free‐testosterone value < 14.5 pg/ml and BMI is between 18‐32; sedentary status
Exclusion criteria: clinically unstable coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease, osteoarthritis of the lower extremity that could limit ambulation, clinically significant benign prostatic hypertropy (BPH), prostate cancer, an elevated prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) value, hematocrit>52%, disorders known to affect body composition including hypokalemia, renal insufficiency, liver dysfunction, diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism,
alcoholism, thromoboembolic disease or coagulopathy, supraphysiologic glucocorticoid medication during the previous 12 months, androgen medications including supplements during the past 5 years, clinically significant psychiatric disease, or known pituitary disease, or radiation of the hypothalamus or pituitary gland.

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 11 resistance exercises adapted from the Strong for Life video
Equipment: elastic bands
Intensity: used the next level of elastic band when the perceived exertion was less than moderate
Frequency: 3 to 4 times a week
Reps/Sets:10/1
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: home
Supervision: returned for an out‐patient visit every two weeks and phone calls
Adherence: 90%
2. Control Group: non exercise intervention

Outcomes

SF‐36
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Kongsgaard 2004

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 3/9 in the ex group; 2/9 in the control group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Denmark
N = 18 (9 in each group)
Sample: home‐dwelling elder men with COPD
Age: mean 71 years (SD = 1.3)
Inclusion criteria: can transport to the hospital
Exclusion criteria: fractures of the lower extremities within the last 6 months, neurological disease, cardio‐vascular diseases, dependence on more than one walking device and cognitive dysfunction

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 3 LL
Equipment: Technogym
Intensity: 80% of 1 RM
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: 8/4
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: not reported (Gym?)
Supervision: full
Adherence: extending the training period until a total of 24 training sessions were finished
2. Control Group: daily non‐supervised breathing ex

Outcomes

Primary: simple ADL (interview)
Secondary: forced expiratory volume, muscle strength (5 RM), gait speed, timed stair climbing
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Krebs 2007

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: a computer‐generated table
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: NA
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 15 (6 in PRT)
Sample: community dwelling elders with disability
Age: mean 70.4 years (SD = 6.5)
Inclusion criteria: at least 60 years of age, cognitive intactness, ambulate independently more than 15 feet, had more than one lower‐limb impairment, and have more than one functional limitation on SF‐36
Exclusion criteria: terminal illness, progressive neurological disease, major loss of vision, and acute pain and non‐ambulatory status

Interventions

PRT versus functional training
1. PRT
Type of Ex: resisted proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation exercise, 9 LL/2UL
Equipment: elastic bands
Intensity: 10 RM increased to 6 RM
Frequency:3 to 5 times a week
Reps/Sets: 4‐level of normal progression and 4‐level of advanced levels
Duration: 6 weeks
Setting: home?
Supervision: two physical therapists taught the exercises and checked the exercise log at out‐patient visits
Adherence: PRT group‐ exercised average 5 days per week; functional training group‐ exercise average 5.39 days per week
2. Functional training group: N=6, average age =78.1 years, simulating locomotion activities at 3 different speeds, 3‐5 days a week

Outcomes

Primary: SF‐36
Secondary: muscle strength, paced gait, chair rise, standing balance
Comment on adverse events: yes

Notes

Numerical results of means and SDs were not reported. Reported/figured % difference

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Lamoureux 2003

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 1/29 in the experimental group, 1/16 in the control group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Australia
N = 45 (29 in PRT)
Sample: community dwelling elderly
Age: mean 68.5 years (SD = 1.2)
Inclusion criteria: no resistance‐training background, no cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal disorders, neurological dysfunction and uncontrolled chronic conditions
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5 LL
Equipment: Pin‐loaded weigh machines
Intensity: from 60% 1RM in week 1 to 85% 1RM in week 14
Frequency: Ex3 ‐first 3 months; then Ex2‐last 3 months
Reps/Sets: 5‐8/2‐5
Duration: 24 weeks
Setting: not reported
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 95.5%
2. Control Group: maintain normal activities

Outcomes

Muscle strength
Gait velocity
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Final muscle strength outcome was not available
Data at week 12 were extracted = baseline + change score. Final SD = baseline SD

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Latham 2001

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: concealed envelopes
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 3
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: New Zealand
N = 20
Sample: hospitalised older people
Age: mean 81 years (SD 8.6)
Inclusion criteria: 65 years or older, patient on hospital ward, expected length of stay of > 1 week
Exclusion criteria: unable to perform knee extension against gravity with both legs, recent lower limb fracture, cognitive impairment which limited participation, leg ulcers on lower calf region

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 1 LL
Equipment: velcro ankle weights
Intensity: 50‐80% 1RM
Frequency: 5 times a week
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: duration of hospital stay (app 2 weeks)
Setting: gym in rehabilitation wards of a hospital
Supervision: full
Adherence: 90%
2. Control Group: regular physiotherapy

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Gait speed
TUAG
Balance (Berg)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Latham 2003

Methods

RCT with a factorial design (only information about PRT vs control reported, 3‐ month outcomes reported)
Method of randomisation: central computerised randomisation, blocks of 6 by centre
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: no, but attention control
Loss to follow‐up: 21
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: yes, at the 6th month

Participants

Location: New Zealand and Australia
N = 243
Sample: frail older adults recruited from hospital geriatric services
Age: mean 79.1 years (SD 6.9)
Inclusion criteria: age 65 years or more, receiving hospital care from geriatric services, considered to be frail, not clear indication or contraindication to study treatments
Exclusion criteria: responsible physician considered the interventions definitely hazardous or required, patients unlikely to survive 6 months, severe cognitive impairment which could compromise adherence to the exercise programme, not fluent in the English language

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 1 LL
Equipment: velcro ankle weights
Intensity: aimed for 50‐80% for most of the programme
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: 10 weeks
Setting: home‐based
Supervision: limited ‐ fortnightly home visits alternating with phone calls
Adherence: 82% (including drop‐outs)
2. Control Group: frequency‐matched phone calls and home visits

Outcomes

Primary: falls over 6 months, HRQoL (SF‐36)
Secondary: balance (Berg), strength (hand‐held dynamometer), gait speed, TUAG, Barthel Index, Adelaide Activities Profile, Falls Self‐Efficacy Index, adverse events ( limitation in ADL for 2+ days and/or attention sought from health care professional)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Liu‐Ambrose 2005

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: computer‐generalized list
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 2/34 in PRT, 2/34 in stretching
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Canada
N = 68 (34 in each group)
Sample: elder women with osteoporosis or osteopenia
Age: mean 79.6 years (SD = 2.1)
Inclusion criteria: age between 75‐85 years with low bone mass and diagnosed with osteoporosis/osteopenia
Exclusion criteria: living in care facilities, non‐Caucasian, exercise regularly more than 2 times a week, illness or condition that would affect balance, MMSE score lowers than 23

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 4 UL, 5LL
Equipment: machines (Keiser Pressurized Air system) or free weights
Intensity: progressed from 50‐60 % of 1 RM to 75‐85% of 1 RM in 4 weeks
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: 10‐15/2 (first 3 weeks); 6‐8/2 (after week 3)
Duration: 25 weeks
Setting: community center
Supervision: certified fitness instructors
Adherence: 85% for PRT, 79% for stretching (control)
2. Control Group: general stretching, deep breathing and relaxation

Outcomes

Primary: health related quality of life, general physical function
Secondary: muscle strength, gait speed, fall risk assessment
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Macaluso 2003

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: the principal investigator drew numbers from a bowl that had been thoroughly mixed
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 7
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: UK
N = 10‐speed group (LI), N=10‐Strength group (HI)
Sample: healthy elder women
Age: mean = 69 years (SD = 2.7)
Inclusion criteria: not reported
Exclusion criteria: not "medical stable" for exercise studies

Interventions

PRT (speed versus strength)
Type of Ex: pedal
Equipment: mechanically braked cycle ergometer
Intensity: speed group (LI)‐40% of 2 max resistance to complete 2 revolutions (2RM); strength group (HI)‐80% of 2 RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: Speed group (LI)‐16 pedal revolutions/8 sets; Strength group (HI)‐8 pedals revolutions/8sets
Duration: 16 weeks
Setting: not reported (gym?)
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: speed group (LI)‐93%; strength group (HI)‐89%

Outcomes

Strength measure
Max treadmill walking speed
Box‐stepping test
Vertical jump
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Involved power training, no control group

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Madden 2006

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRT, control, and endurance (aerobic) group
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 5 in the endurance training group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 30 (15 in each group)
Sample: healthy elder women
Age: mean 69.8 years (SD = 1.5)
Inclusion criteria: a normal blood pressure, a normal physical exam, normal resting ECG, normal M‐mode and two‐dimensional echocardiograms showing no more than mild valvular regurgitation, a normal Bruce protocol treadmill maximal exercise stress test, and a normal hematocrit, fasting blood glucose, total cholesterol, and creatinine.
Exclusion criteria: any history of angina, myocardial infarction, stroke, hypertension, chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes, current medication use (prescription or over the counter), current smoking, or exercise‐limiting orthopedic impairment.

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus endurance (aerobic)
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 10 UL and LL
Equipment: not reported (weight?)
Intensity: 85% 1RM
Frequency: 5 times/week
Reps/Sets: 8‐12/3
Duration: 24 weeks
Setting: not reported (Gym?)
Supervision: full‐certified trainer
Adherence: required participants to attend 90% of all training sessions to remain enrolled in the study
2. Control Group: no training
3. Endurance Ex (aerobic) Group: N=15, mean age=70 years (SD = 2.6), using cycle ergometer, 50‐60% Max HR to 80‐85% Max HR, 5 times a week

Outcomes

VO2max
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Baseline + relative change score
Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Maiorana 1997

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 5
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Australia
N = 31
Sample: men at least 3 months after coronary bypass
Age: mean 61.2 years (SD 8.4) in training group
Inclusion criteria: male, at least 3 months after coronary artery bypass surgery, low risk for recurrent cardiac events (normal left ventricular function, no residual ischemia, and an exercise capacity exceeding 4 metabolic equivalents during graded exercise testing)
Exclusion criteria: not in an exercise rehabilitation programme at time of recruitment, moderate/severe left ventricular function, valve replacement/repair, history of CHF, on beta‐blocking medication, significant resting hypertension (systolic BP >160mmHg or diastolic 100 mmHg) angina or significant ST depression during graded exercise testing

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 7UL, 4LL, 1 Tr
Equipment: machines, dumb‐bells
Intensity: 40% of MVC at beginning or program, 60% by end
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10‐15/3
Duration: 10 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: all subjects completed at least 80% of sessions (excluding drop‐outs)
2. Control Group: maintain current physical activity habits

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Aerobic capacity (Peak VO2 on treadmill test)
Self‐efficacy
Comments on adverse events: yes (safety an aim of study)

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Malliou 2003

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRT, functional training, and PRT with functional training group
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: not reported
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Greece
N = 25 (15 in multi‐joint resistance training group)
Sample: healthy inactive elderly
Age: mean 68 years
Inclusion criteria: inactive prior to the study, not exhibited anemia, hepatic complications, thyroid disorders or kidney problems, no hypertension, no potential damaging orthopedic and neuromuscular problems.
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus aerobic
1.PRT
Type of Ex: 3 LL‐ multi‐joint resistance training group
Equipment: Universal exercise machines
Intensity: 90% of 1 RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 12/3
Duration:10 weeks
Setting: not reported (gym?)
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control group: no training
3. Aerobic ex. group: N = 15, mean age = 69 years, aerobic exercise with light leg weight

Outcomes

Strength measure
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Mangione 2005

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRT, control, and aerobic group
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 1/11‐control group, 1/13‐aerobic training group, 6/17‐resistance training group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 28 (17 in PRT)
Sample: post hip fracture
Age: mean 77.9 years (SD = 7.9)
Inclusion criteria: successful fixation of a hip fracture, at least 65 years old, living at home, and willing to come to the study site
Exclusion criteria: history of unstable angina, uncompensated congestive heart failure, metabolic conditions (i.e., renal dialysis), stroke, Parkinson's disease, life expectancy of less than 6 months, MMSE score is less than 20, and living in a nursing home

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus aerobic
1.PRT
Type of Ex: 4LL
Equipment: portable progressive‐resistance ex. machine and body weight
Intensity: 8 RM
Frequency: first 2 months‐Ex2, the 3rd month‐Ex1
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: participant's home
Supervision: full‐6 physical therapists
Adherence: 98%
2. Control group: received biweekly mailing of non‐ex health topics
3. Aerobic group: N=13, mean age =79.8 years , walking or stepping, LEs/UEs active ROM ex, 65‐75% max heart rate

Outcomes

Primary: SF‐36
Secondary: strength measure, 6‐minute walking test, walking endurance, gait speed
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Manini 2005

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRT, functional training, and PRT with functional training
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 25
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 9‐PRT
Sample: functional limited older adults (low isometric knee extension strength)
Age: mean 72 years (SD = 10)
Inclusion criteria: bilateral isometric knee extension strength test < 3Nm/Kg; pass physician's clearance
Exclusion criteria: had cardiac or pulmonary difficulty

Interventions

PRT versus functional training and versus PRT with functional training
1.PRT
Type of Ex: 3 LL
Equipment: Life‐Fitness Inc.
Intensity: 10 RM
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: 8/2
Duration: 10 weeks (8‐10 weeks of control period before intervention)
Setting: not reported (Gym?)
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: not reported
2. Functional training group: N=7, rising from a chair, rising from kneeling, stair ascending/descending
3. PRT and functional training group: N = 8, 1/week PRT training and 1/week of functional training

Outcomes

Muscle strength
Max. knee isometrics
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Data from PRT and functional training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Maurer 1999

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: random number generator, stratified by disease severity
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: no, but attention control group
Loss to Follow‐up: 15
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: yes ‐ at 12 weeks (after 8 weeks of training)

Participants

Location: USA
N = 113
Sample: people with diagnosed OA of the knee
Age: mean 66.3 years (SD 8.8) in treatment group
Inclusion criteria: met current American College of Rheumatology criteria for OA, between 50‐80 years, receiving no drugs for their arthritis other than stable doses of analgesics or NSAIDs, had mild to moderate knee pain for at least the previous 3 months, scored 1‐3 on the Kellgren radiographic scale
Exclusion criteria: concurrently receiving physical therapy, actively involved in any other pharmaceutical or exercise study or had undergone isokinetic strength training within the previous 3 years, had significant cardiovascular disease, more than mild knee swelling, large popliteal cysts, knee instability, major hip or knee surgery on the side to be treated, systemic disease other than OA that might affect muscle function, severe osteopenia, history of fracture in the area of the joint to be treated, paresis of the lower extremity

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 1 LL
Equipment: isokinetic dynamometer
Intensity: appears high
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 3 reps at 3 speeds (total 9 reps) in 3 sets
Program Duration: 8 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: four classes on OA education and self‐management

Outcomes

Primary: WOMAC, SF‐36
Secondary: strength (isokinetic dynamometer), AIMS index
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
McCartney 1995

Methods

RCT. All results broken down into four groups by sex and age (60‐70 or 70‐80, only results for women aged 70‐80 ‐ the largest group ‐ used for pooled comparisons in review)
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no, but attention/exercise control group
Loss to follow‐up: 23
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no, but exercise program had 2 year duration

Participants

Location: Canada
N = 142
Sample: healthy volunteers
Age: mean 64 years (SD 2.4) for exercise group
Inclusion criteria: approval of family physician, successful completion of cycle ergometer test, aged 60‐80 years, no prior resistance training experience
Exclusion criteria: evidence of coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive or restrictive lung disease, osteoporosis, major orthopaedic disability, smoking, body weight greater than 130% of ideal

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 3UL, 3LL, 1Tr
Equipment: weight‐lifting machines
Intensity: 50‐80% 1RM
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: 10‐12/3
Program Duration: 42 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 88% (at 1 year)
2. Control Group: 2 times per week low‐intensity walking

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Maximum cycle ergometry
Treadmill testing
Stair climbing ergometric muscle cross‐sectional area
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
McGuigan 2001

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 4
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Australia
N = 20
Sample: people with peripheral arterial disease
Age: mean 66 years (SD 6) exercise group
Inclusion criteria: PAD diagnosed by a vascular surgeon
Exclusion criteria: leg pain at rest, ischemic ulceration or gangrene, inability to walk at lest 2km/h on a treadmill, limited exercise capacity by factors other than claudication, vascular surgery or angioplasty in previous year, smoking of cigarettes

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 8 exercise that included UL, LL, Tr, combination varied in each session (1‐3) per week
Equipment: machines
Intensity: used linear periodization, intensity varied with reps
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8‐15/2
Program Duration: 24 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: no intervention

Outcomes

Strength (10 RM)
6 minute walk test
Treadmill walk time
Hemodynamic measures
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
McMurdo 1995

Methods

RCT with three groups, PRT, mobility exercise programme and attention control
Method of randomisation: sealed envelopes in sequence, computer generated random number tables generated the sequence
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: no, but attention control used
Loss to follow‐up: 7 from PRT and control group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no, but program 6 months long

Participants

Location: UK
N = 86 total (55 in PRT vs control)
Sample: residents of sheltered housing complexes
Age: mean 82 years
Inclusion criteria: age 75 years and over, limited mobility requiring the use of a walking aid, dependence in functional activities of daily living requiring the assistance of home help at least once per week
Exclusion criteria: major neurological disease, unstable cardiovascular disease, severe cognitive impairment

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus mobility
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 24 (UL, LL, trunk)
Equipment: theraband, progressive thickness
Intensity: low‐moderate
Frequency: daily
Reps/Sets: 5‐10/1
Program Duration: 26 weeks
Setting: home
Supervision: low ‐ visited at home every 3‐4 weeks
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: health education visits every 3‐4 weeks
3. Mobility Group: same 24 exercises, but with no resistance

Outcomes

TUAG
Sit to stand test (time to complete 10 full stands)
Grip strength
Functional reach
ADL (Barthel Index)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Mihalko 1996

Methods

RCT cluster randomised by residence
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no, but attention control group
Loss to follow‐up: not reported
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 58
Sample: sedentary residents of senior citizen or residential nursing homes
Age: mean 82.7 years (SD 7.7)
Inclusion criteria: residents of senior citizen and residential nursing home facilities, sedentary, clearance form personal physician
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5 UL
Equipment: dumb bells
Intensity: high ‐ worked until failure
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10‐12 reps
Program Duration: 8 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: fluid movement program

Outcomes

ADL performance (modified version of Lawton and Brody's IADL scale)
Strength (1RM)
Satisfaction with Life Scale
Positive and negative affect
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Mikesky 2006

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported‐stratified
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 36% in PRT, 24% in Control (range of motion)
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes, done at the 30th month
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 221 (113 in PRT)
Sample: knee OA
Age: mean = 69.4 years (SD = 8)
Inclusion criteria: not clearly described
Exclusion criteria: cannot walk without assistance, amputation of either lower extremity, knee or hip replacement, history of stroke, myocardial infarction, CHF, uncontrolled hypertension, fibromyalgia…

Interventions

PRT versus flexibility (control)
1.PRT
Type of Ex: 2UL/2LL
Equipment: CYBEX machines at gym; Elastic bands at home,
Intensity: 8‐10 RM
Frequency: Ex3; first 3 months (2/week in the gym, 1/week at home), month 4‐6 (1/week in the gym, 2/week at home), month 7‐9 (2/month in the gym, 3/week at home); month 10‐12 (1/month in the gym, 3/week at home)
Reps/Sets: from 8‐10/ 3 to 12/2
Duration: 1 year
Setting: gym and home
Supervision: full‐1 fitness trainer in the gym
Adherence: attending gym (PRT‐59%, control/ROM‐64%); home ex (PRT‐56%, control/ROM‐62%)
2. Flexibility exercise group: N=108, mean age = 68.6 years (SD = 7.5), flexibility ex, 3 times/week

Outcomes

Primary: SF‐36 (at the 30 month), WOMAC
Secondary: Strength measure (1RM)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

SF‐36 was not pooled because it was not measured right after the training

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Miller 2006

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: computer generated sequence, stratified and block randomization
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 3 withdrawn (1 in control), 4 death (2 in PRT)
Intention‐to‐teat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Australia
N = 51 (25 in PRT)
Sample: fall‐related lower limb fracture
Age: mean 84.8 years
Inclusion criteria: at least 70 years old, fall‐related lower limb fracture
Exclusion criteria: (1) did not reside within southern Adelaide, (2) were unable to comprehend instructions relating to positioning of the upper arm for eligibility assessment, (3) were unable to fully weight bear on the side of the injury for more than seven days post admission, (4) were not independently mobile prefracture, (5) were medically unstable more than 7 days post admission, (6) were suffering from cancer, chronic renal failure, unstable angina or unstable diabetes or (7) were not classified as malnourished

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5 LL
Equipment: elastic band
Intensity: was appropriate to baseline strength, pain level and range of motion
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: increased to 8/2 if exercise could be completed in good form
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: a teaching hospital
Supervision: full‐pysiotherapist
Adherence: > 86%
2. Control group: attention control, week 1‐6: tri‐weekly home visits, week 7‐12: weekly home visit; discussion of general information during the visit

Outcomes

Primary: SF‐12
Secondary: strength measure, gait speed
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Reported Median & 95%CI. Data from participants who took nutrition supplementation were not extracted.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Miszko 2003

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRE, control, and power exercise
Method of randomisation: stratified by sex
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 4/17 in PRT, 7/18 in power
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 28 (13 in PRT)
Sample: older adults with below average leg extensor power
Age: mean 72.8 years (SD = 5.4)
Inclusion criteria: below‐average leg extensor power
Exclusion criteria: poorly controlled or unstable cardiovascular disease or diabetes, recent unhealed bone fracture (within the past 12 months), severe hypertension while resting quietly in the supine position, leg or arm amputation, excessive alcohol intake (more than three drinks per day), a classic anterior compression fracture, neuromuscular disorders, being nonambulatory, or having recent (within 6 months) involvement in a strength‐training or running or jogging program.

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus power exercise
1.PRT
Type of Ex: 4UL/4LL & squats
Equipment: Keiser Inc.
Intensity: 50% ‐> 70% of 1RM by week 8, 80% of 1RM the last 8 weeks
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 6‐8/3
Duration: 16 weeks
Setting: not reported (Gym?)
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: maintain usual activity and attend 3 educational presentations over the study period
3. Power Ex Group: N=11, mean age = 72.3 years (SD = 6.7), the same exercise as the PRT group but did jump squats instead of squats, 6‐8 repetition at 40% of 1RM, move as fast as possible

Outcomes

Primary: Continuous Scale Physical Functional Performance
Secondary: strength measure (1 RM)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Involved power training

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Moreland 2001

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: concealed, phoned central office
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 10
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: yes, at the 6th month

Participants

Location: Canada
N = 133 (68 in PRT)
Sample: people post‐stroke
Age: mean 69 years
Inclusion criteria: not reported
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1.PRT
Type of Ex: UL, LL
Equipment: not reported
Intensity: not reported
Frequency: not reported
Reps/Sets: not reported
Program Duration: until hospital discharge
Setting: hospital
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: regular therapy

Outcomes

Primary: Chedoke‐McMaster Stroke Assessment
Secondary: 2‐minute walk test
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Nelson 1994

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 1
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: no, but program had 1‐year duration

Participants

Location: USA
N=40
Sample: healthy females post‐menopause
Age:mean 61.1 years (SD 3.7)
Inclusion criteria: at least 5 years post‐menopausal but not older than 70, do not engage in any regular physical training, weigh less than 130% of ideal body weight, currently non‐smoking, do not have more than one crush fracture of the spine, no history of other osteoporotic fractures, have not taken estrogen or other medications known to affect bone for 12 months, passed physical screening (including ECG during strength training session)
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1.PRT
Type of Ex: 2 LL, 1 UL, 2Tr
Equipment: pneumatic resistance machines (Keiser)
Intensity: 80% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: 8/ 3
Program Duration: 52 weeks
Adherence: 87.5%
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
2. Control Group: asked to maintain normal level of activity, could receive the exercise program at the end of the trial

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Balance (backward walking)
Physical activity (Harvard Alumini Questionnaire, kJ/week)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Newnham 1995

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: no, but attention control
Loss to follow‐up: 6
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: yes, at the 24 week

Participants

Location: Canada
N = 30
Sample: residents of long‐term care facility
Age: mean 81.7 years (SD 5.6)
Inclusion criteria: age 70+, independent in ambulation (with or without walking aid) over 40m at <0.9m/s, 20+ on TUAG; at least 90 degrees of available ROM at knee, can follow a 3‐step command
Exclusion criteria: have Parkinsons Disease or CVA; participation in strength training in the past year; unstable medical conditions

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: UL, LL
Equipment: pullies
Intensity: 80% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/3
Program Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: gym in nursing home
Supervision: full
Adherence: 86%
2. Control Group: attention control

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Gait velocity
TUAG
Balance (Berg)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Nichols 1993

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: stratified into rank‐ordered pairs and randomised
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 6
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no, but 6 month duration of program

Participants

Location: USA
N = 36
Sample: active healthy women
Age: mean 67.8 years (SE 1.6)
Inclusion criteria: greater than 60 years, active for at least 6 months prior to the trial with exercise at least 3 times per week, physician's consent
Exclusion criteria: previous weight training, history of cardiovascular disease, taking thyroid or cardiac medications, nonestrogen repleted

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 4UL, 2LL, 1Tr
Equipment: variable resistance machines (Polaris)
Intensity: 80% 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8‐10/3
Program Duration: 24 weeks
Setting: gym
Adherence: 87% of sessions
Supervision: full
2. Control Group: maintain current routine

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Activity performance
Blair Seven Day Recall
Comments on adverse events: yes (safety a priority objective)

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Ouellette 2004

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to Follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 42 (21 in each group)
Sample: single mild to moderate stroke
Age: mean 65.8 years (SD = 2.5)
Inclusion criteria: subjects aged at least 50 years, 6 months to 6 years following a single unilateral mild to moderate stroke with residual lower extremity hemiparesis, community dwelling, independent ambulation with or without an assistive device, report of 2 or more limitations on the physical function subscale (PF 10) of the Medical Outcomes Survey Short‐Form, ability to travel to the exercise laboratory, and willingness to be randomized. Stroke was diagnosed by history and clinical examination, and confirmed via medical records review.
Exclusion criteria: myocardial infarction within the past 6 months, symptomatic coronary artery disease or congestive heart failure, uncontrolled hypertension, fracture within the past 6 months, acute or terminal illness, score less than 20 on the MMSE, inability to follow a 3‐step command, current participation in regular strength training or supervised physical therapy, or pain during exercise.

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 4 LLs
Equipment: Pneumatic resistance training equipment (Keiser Sports Health Equipment) and modified stack‐pulley system (Therapy Systems)
Intensity: 70% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8‐10/3
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: 85.4%‐PRT; 79.9%‐controls
2. Control group: bilateral range of motion ex and upper body flexibility exercise

Outcomes

Primary: Late‐Life Function and Disability Instrument, sickness impact profile
Secondary: strength measure (1 RM), 6‐minutes walk, gait speed, stair climb, chair rise
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

SD is obtained from SE for LLFD 1

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Parkhouse 2000

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to Follow‐up: not reported
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Canada
N = 22
Sample: sedentary older women with low bone mineral density
Age: mean 68.1 years
Inclusion criteria: community‐dwelling, sedentary, post‐menopausal women, aged 60‐80 years, low bone mineral density
Exclusion criteria: medical or orthopaedic problems that would interfere with their ability to participate in physical activity, on hormone replacement

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 9 LL
Equipment: not reported
Intensity: 75‐80% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8‐10/3
Program Duration: 8 months
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: not reported

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Pollock 1991

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRT, control, and aerobic training group
Method of randomisation: rank ordered then randomly stratified into 3 groups, with the restriction that more would be assigned to training groups
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to Follow‐up: 8 total (4 in PRT and control)
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no, but 6 month exercise program

Participants

Location: USA
N = 57 in total (36 in PRT and control)
Sample: sedentary men and women
Age: mean 72 years
Inclusion criteria: free from overt evidence of coronary heart disease or any other conditions that would limit their participation in vigorous exercise; aged 70‐79, sedentary for one year
Exclusion criteria: blood pressure >160/100; ECG changes or cardiac symptoms during exercise testing

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus aerobic
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5UL, 2LL, 3 Tr
Equipment: variable resistance machines (Nautilus)
Intensity: initially light to moderate, by week 14 encouraged to train to fatigue
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8‐12/ 1
Program Duration: 26 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 97.8% sessions attended (excluding drop‐outs), 87% stayed with program
2. Control Group: not reported
3. Aerobic Training Group: 3 sessions per week of walk/jog program for 26 weeks, aimed for duration of 35‐45min minutes at 75‐85% VO2 max by week 26

Outcomes

Strength
VO2 max
Adverse events
Reaction time
Comments on adverse events: yes (a priority outcome, well‐ defined)

Notes

Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Pu 2001

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: matched by age then randomised
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 2
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 16
Sample: older women with CHF
Age: mean 77 years (SE 6)
Inclusion criteria: community‐dwelling women; 65 years or older; mild to moderate systolic heart failure New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I to III; resting ejection fraction less than or equal to 45%,
Exclusion criteria: NYHA class IV heart failure; myocardial infarction within 6 months of randomisation, hospitalization for CHF within 2 months, change of CHF therapy within 1 MO; unstable angina pectoris, fixed ventricular rate pacemaker, abdominal aortic aneurysm >4cm, major limb amputation, symptomatic abdominal or inguinal hernias, MMSE <23, signification abnormalities on treadmill or strength testing, any unstable medical conditions

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 2UL, 2LL
Equipment: pneumatic resistance equipment (Keiser)
Intensity: 80% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Program Duration: 10 weeks
Setting: Gym
Adherence: 98%
Supervision: Full
2. Control Group: sham exercise group 2 time per week of supervised, low‐intensity stretches for 10 weeks

Outcomes

Exercise capacity (6‐minute walk)
Maximal oxygen consumption
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Rall 1996

Methods

RCT: (groups of healthy young people and middle‐aged people with RA not included in this review)
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no drop‐outs, not stated
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 14
Sample: healthy elderly
Age: mean 70.3 years (SD 5)
Inclusion criteria: healthy older people (ages 65‐80)
Exclusion criteria: obese (BMI>30), diabetes, cancer, renal disease, liver disease, cardiac artery disease, endocrine disorder, autoimmune disease

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 1UL, 2LL, 2 Tr
Equipment: pneumatic resistance machines (Keiser)
Intensity: 80% of 1 RM
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: 8/ 3
Program Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: 92%
2. Control Group: 15 minutes of water exercises

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Aerobic capacity ‐ VO2 max
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Reeves 2004

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: not reported
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: UK
N = 18 (9 in each group)
Sample: physically active volunteers
Age: mean 74.3 years (SD = 3.5)
Inclusion criteria: no neurological or musculoskeletal disorder that might prevent participation
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 2UL/2LL
Equipment: Technogym machines
Intensity: 80% of 5 RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/2
Duration: 14 weeks
Setting: not reported
Supervision: full
Adherence: 93%
2. Control Group: to keep normal activity level

Outcomes

Muscle strength
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Rhodes 2000

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 6
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no, but exercise program 1 year duration

Participants

Location: Canada
N = 44
Sample: healthy, community‐dwelling sedentary women
Age: mean 68.8 years
Inclusion criteria: aged 65‐75, not actively engaged in an organised activity program, had independent community dwelling status, passed medical screening by doctor
Exclusion criteria: recent hospital stay, blind, severe hearing impairment, uncontrolled hypertension and diabetes, symptomatic cardiorespiratory disease, severe renal or hepatic disease, uncontrolled epilepsy, progressive neurological disease, chronic disabling arthritis, MMSE<25/30, anaemia, marked obesity with the inability to exercise, regular exercise at the time of screening more than 3 times 30 minutes per week, current use of Beta‐blockers, oral anti‐coagulants or central nervous system stimulants

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 3UL, 3LL
Equipment: weight‐lifting equipment (Universal Gym)
Intensity: 75% 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Program duration: 1 year
Setting: first 3 months in supervised gym, last 9 months at a recreation facility close to participants' home
Supervision: supervised for first 3 months, last 9 months had occasional visits from study staff
Adherence: 86% (attendance)
2. Control Group: asked to maintain normal lifestyle, could participate in exercises at the end of the trial

Outcomes

Muscle strength (1RM, hand grip)
Flexibility (trunk flexion test)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Schilke 1996

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: table of random numbers used
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: no
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: No dropouts, not stated ITT
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 20
Sample: man and women with knee OA
Age: mean 64.5 years in PRT group
Inclusion criteria: from rheumatology clinic, no condition to preclude increased activity/strength training, not currently involved in a scheduled program of regular of exercise and had not participated in a strength‐training program in the last 6 months
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1.PRT
Type of Ex:1LL
Equipment: isokinetic dynamometer (Cybex II)
Intensity: high ‐ maximal contractions
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 5/ 6 by session 6 (the end of week 2)
Program duration: 8 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: usual activities

Outcomes

Strength (isokinetic dynamometer)
Timed walk
Range of motion
Health status (Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales; higher score = poor health status)
Osteoarthritis Screening Index (OASI; modified from Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index; higher score = worse health)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Schlicht 1999

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 2
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N=24
Sample: moderately active, community‐dwelling men and women
Age: mean 72 years (SD 6.3)
Inclusion criteria: 60 years and older, community‐dwelling, physician consent to participate
Exclusion criteria: dependent living status, current involvement in a strength training program, physiological disorders that precluded strenuous exercise or affected vestibular function

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 6LL
Equipment: resistance training machines (Universal, Cybex and Paramount equipment)
Intensity: 75% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/2
Program Duration: 8 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 99% (excluding drop outs)
2. Control Group: not reported

Outcomes

Muscle strength (1 RM)
Maximum walking speed
5‐rep sit‐to‐stand
Balance (1‐leg stance with eyes shut)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Segal 2003

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: using a table of random numbers, which was stratified by study centers and intent of treatment (curative or palliative)
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 8/82 in the PRT group; 12/73 in the control group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Canada
N = 155 (82 in PRT)
Sample: men with prostate cancer
Age: mean 68.2 years (SD = 7.9)
Inclusion criteria: had prostate cancer, would received androgen deprivation therapy for at least 3 months after recruitment, and the treating oncologist provided consent
Exclusion criteria: severe cardiac disease, uncontrolled hypertension, pain, unstable bone lesions, and residence more than 1 hr from the study center

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 6UL/3LL
Equipment: not reported
Intensity: 60‐70% of 1 RM, increased 5 lb after 12 successful repetitions
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8‐12/2
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: fitness center
Supervision: full
Adherence: 79%
2. Control Group: on a waiting list, offered the identical exercise advice and guideline as the exercise group after the study period

Outcomes

Primary: Health‐related quality of life
Secondary: Muscle fatigue (Number of repetition)
Comments of adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Selig 2004

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 3/19 in the PRT group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Australia
N = 33 (14 in PRT)
Sample: with chronic heart failure
Age: mean 65 years (SD = 13)
Inclusion criteria: left ventricular systolic failure except aortic stenosis, left ventricular ejection fraction below 40%, and stable pharmacologic therapy
Exclusion criteria: New York Heart Association Class I or IV, mayocardiact infarction in the previous 6 months, cardiac arrest, symptomatic, sustained ventricular tachycardia, current angina, conditions that constraindicate exercise, did not pass baseline assessment

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex : 5 UL/4 LL
Equipment: multistation hydraulic resistance training system
Intensity: by increasing resistance or the number of sets
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: not reported
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: hospital rehabilitation gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: usual care

Outcomes

Muscle strength
VO2 max
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Seynnes 2004

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: high intensity, low intensity, and control
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: yes
Loss to follow‐up: 5/27 drop out
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: France
N = 8‐HI; N = 6‐LI; N = 8‐control
Sample: institutionalized elders
Age: HI‐mean 83.3 years (SD = 2.8); LI‐mean 80.7 years (SD = 2.3)
Inclusion criteria: at least 70 years of age, ambulatory, and understand simple instructions
Exclusion criteria: (a) cognitive impairment precluding understanding of the written informed consent; (b) practice of regular exercise outside of the research activities; (c) unstable cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, or any other unstable medical condition; (d) amputations; (e) hernias; (f) symptomatic known unrepaired aortic aneurysm; (g) recent (within 6 months) hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, fracture, eye surgery, or laser treatment; (h) skin disease precluding placement of ankle weights; (i) musculoskeletal deformity; (j) neuromuscular disease; and (k) symptomatic rheumatoid or osteoarthritis precluding planned exercises.

Interventions

PRT (high intensity and low intensity) versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 1LL
Equipment: ankle cuff
Intensity: HI‐80% of 1RM; LI‐40% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: 10 weeks
Setting: not reported‐gym?
Supervision: full
Adherence: 99%
2. Control Group: wearing empty ankle cuff and did the same exercise as the Ex group but without weights

Outcomes

Primary: self‐reported disability
Secondary: muscle strength (1RM), muscle endurance, 6‐minute walking, chair rising, stair climbing
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

SD was calculated from SEM
Date from high intensity PRT and low intensity PRT were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Simoneau 2006

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: not reported
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: France
N = 20 (11 in PRT)
Sample: healthy and community dwelling people
Age: mean 78.1 years (SD = 3.1)
Inclusion criteria: no muscular, neurological, cardiovascular, metabolic, and inflammatory disease' moderately active individuals
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex : 1 LL‐ankle joint
Equipment: elastic bands‐home
Intensity: increased progressively from 50% ‐ 55% of 3RM to 70% of 3 RM
Frequency: Ex3 (2 supervised and 1 at home)
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: 24 weeks
Setting: gym and home
Supervision: 2 sessions were supervised
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: maintain usual activities

Outcomes

Muscle strength (Torques)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Training at ankle joints

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Simons 2006

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 2/21 in the PRT group; 1/21 in the control group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 42 (21 in each group)
Sample: older adults from independent living facility
Age: mean 84.6 years (SD = 4.5)
Inclusion criteria: had clearance by the primary physician, lack of regular exercise more than 1 year, and at least 65 years of age
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 3UL/3LL
Equipment: Keiser machines
Intensity: 75% of 1 RM, increased the load of 5%
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: 10/1
Duration: 16 weeks
Setting: fitness center
Supervision: full, by trained instructors
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: controls and Ex group all had 6 one‐hour health lectures at 3‐week intervals

Outcomes

Muscle strength (1RM)
Flexibility
Balance and agibility
Eye‐hand coordination
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Simpson 1992

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: stratified (don't know how) and randomly assigned
Participant blinding: no
Assessor blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 6
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Canada
N = 34
Sample: people with chronic airflow obstruction
Age: mean 73 years (SD 4.8) in PRT group
Inclusion criteria: aged 58‐80, attending a respiratory outpatient clinic, in a clinically stable state, no recent infective exacerbation, drug management was considered to be optimal, FE to VC ratio of less than 0.7, body weight within 30% of ideal weight, absence of disorders likely to affect exercise, capacity to take part in the training program,
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 1UL, 2LL
Equipment: weight‐lifting machines
Intensity: 50‐85% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/3
Program Duration: 8 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 90%
2. Control Group: only attended testing sessions

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Spirometry
Aerobic capacity (VO2 max)
6‐minute walk test
Likert scale rating of discomfort during four daily activities (1= extreme disability, 7=none) assessed for fatigue, dyspnoea, emotion and mastery
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Sims 2006

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: by an independent person with a previously block randomised list
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 6
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: yes, at the 6th month

Participants

Location: Australia
N = 32 (14 in PRT)
Sample: older adults with depression symptoms
Age: mean 74.28 years(SD = 5.87)
Inclusion criteria: at least 65 years old; GDS score > 11
Exclusion criteria: unsuitable to exercise according to the score of the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire. Alcohol or drug related depression; depression with psychotic features; schizophrenia; bipolar disorder; other psychiatric diagnoses; suicidal ideation; dementia; terminally ill; uncontrolled hypertension, unstable insulin dependent diabetes, and unstable angina. They excluded those currently receiving antidepressants in order to determine the independent impact of PRT.

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: major UL and LL muscles
Equipment: weights
Intensity: 80% of 1RM & Borg's perceived exertion scale
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8‐10/3
Duration: 10 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: 5 attended 2‐15 sessions, 7 attended 18‐30 sessions 58% meet the adherence criterion of 60% of sessions completed
2. Control group: received ex information (Ex group received it too)

Outcomes

Human Activity Profile WHO‐QOL
PASE‐functional health status
PGMS‐well being
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Singh 1997

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: computer‐generated list in blocks of five
Assessor blinding: all outcomes except strength
Participant blinding: no, but attention control group
Loss to follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no drop‐outs but not stated
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 32
Sample: community‐dwelling depressed older people
Age: mean 70 years (SD 1.5) in PRT group
Inclusion criteria: age 60 and over, fulfil DSM‐IV diagnostic criteria for either unipolar major or minor depression or dysthymia.
Exclusion criteria: dementia, MM SE<23, unstable diseases, bipolar disorder, active psychosis, suicidal plans, currently seeing a psychiatrist, on antidepressant drugs within the last 3 months, participating in any progressive resistance training or in aerobic exercise more than twice a week in the previous month

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 2UL, 3LL
Equipment: exercise machines (Keiser)
Intensity: 80% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Program Duration: 10 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: median 93%
2. Control Group: health education program, 2 times per week for 1 hour

Outcomes

Sickness Impact Profile
Katz ADL scale
Lawton Brody IADL scale
SF‐36
Strength (1RM)
Adverse events (chest pain, musculoskeletal pain, medication change, intercurrent illness, hospitalisation, visits to a health professional, worsening of suicidality
Comments on adverse events: yes (a priority outcome)

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Singh 2005

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: high intensity, low intensity, and control
Method of randomisation: by a computer generated random number program in blocks of 15
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: yes
Loss to follow‐up: 2/20 in the high intensity group; 3/20 in the low intensity group; 1/20 in the control group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Australia
N = 20 in each group
Sample: major or minor depression
Age: HI‐mean 69 years (SD=5); LI‐ mean 70 years (SD = 7)
Inclusion criteria: aged 60 years; major depression, minor depression, or dysthymia; and had a GDS score at least 14.
Exclusion criteria: if demented clinically according to DSM‐IV criteria or if their MMSE score was less than 23, if they were suffering from unstable medical disease which would preclude resistance training, had bipolar disorder or active psychosis, or were determined by the study physician to be actively suicidal. They were also excluded if they were currently seeing a psychiatrist, prescribed antidepressant drugs within the last 3 months, or were currently participating in any exercise training more than twice a week.

Interventions

PRT (high intensity versus low intensity) versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 3UL/3LL
Equipment: Keiser Sports Health Equipment
intensity: high intensity group‐ 80% of 1RM; low intensity group‐ 20% of 1 RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: 8 weeks
Setting: outpatient gym in a hospital
Supervision: full
Adherence: high intensity group: 95‐100%; low intensity group: 99‐100%
2. Control Group: usual care

Outcomes

Primary: SF‐36
Secondary: muscle strength (1RM)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Sipila 1996

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRT, control and aerobic training group
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 4 in PRT/controls (8 total)
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Finland
N = 42 total (27 in PRT and control)
Sample: healthy older women
Age: 76‐78 years
Inclusion criteria: born between 1915‐17 (aged 76‐78), no severe diseases or functional impairments, no indications against intensive physical exercise (medical exam and exercise test screening)
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus endurance (aerobic)
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 4LL
Equipment: variable resistance machines (HUR equipment)
Intensity: 60‐75% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8‐10/3‐4
Program duration: 18 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: 71‐86% (varied depending upon muscle group/exercise type)
2. Control Group: instructed to continue daily routines and not change their physical activity levels
3. Endurance exercise group: 18 weeks of track walking (2 times per week) and step aerobics (once per week) at 50%‐80% of initial maximum heart rate reserve

Outcomes

Strength
Walking speed
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Skelton 1995

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: a random numbers table
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 7
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: UK
N = 47
Sample:healthy, independent women
Age: median 79.5 years (range 76‐93) in PRT group
Inclusion criteria: healthy; medically stable; no recent history of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, respiratory, systemic or muscular disease; any impairment that interfered with mobility, live independently, require not help with ADL's
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 3UL, 6LL
Equipment: rice bags and elastic tubing
Intensity: resistance increased as soon as participant could complete 3 sets of 8 reps
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 4‐8/ 3
Program duration: 12 weeks
Setting: group exercise class 1 day per week, home 2 days
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: no one attended fewer than 6 classes or 11 home sessions
2. Control Group: asked not to change their activities

Outcomes

Human Activity Profile
Anthropometry
Strength (isometric strength and handgrip): such as extensor power
Functional reach
Chair rise
Timed walk
Stair walking
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Skelton 1996

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: matched by age then randomised
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 2
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: UK
N = 20
Sample: women with functional limitations
Age: median 81 years
Inclusion criteria: age:75+, from GP practice, have minor or major functional/mobility laminations
Exclusion criteria: any disease / condition adversely affected by exercise

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 2UL, 6LL
Equipment: theraband, cuff‐weights
Intensity: resistance increased as soon as participant could complete 3 sets of 8 reps
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 4‐8/3
Program Duration: 8 weeks
Setting: 1 class per week, 2 home sessions per week
Supervision: class supervised, home exercises unsupervised
Adherence: no subject performed fewer than 30 complete sessions
2. Control Group: asked not to change activities

Outcomes

Human Activity Profile
Strength (isometric strength and handgrip)
1‐legged balance
Chair rise
Timed walk
Timed up‐and‐go
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Sousa 2005

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: NA
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Portugal
N = 20 (10 in each group)
Sample: healthy men
Age: mean 73 years (SD = 6)
Inclusion criteria: family physician's approval
Exclusion criteria: taking medications that could affect balance, smokers, history of falls, and orthopedic, neurological, cardiac, or pulmonary problems

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 4UL/3LL
Equipment: Image Sport Machines
Intensity: increased progressively from 50% to 80% of 1RM over the program
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: first 8 weeks: 8‐12/2‐3; then 6‐10/2‐3
Duration: 14 weeks
Setting: not reported‐gym?
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 95%
2. Control Group: not reported

Outcomes

Primary: self‐reported disability
Secondary: Muscle strength (1 RM), TUAG, functional reach test
Comment on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Suetta 2004

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: by a computer program
Assessor blinding: On measuring muscle cross‐sectional area
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 2/13‐PRT group, 3/12‐Control
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Denmark
N = 25 (13 in PRT)
Sample: unilateral hip replacement due to OA
Age: Mean 71 years
Inclusion criteria: age at least of 60 years, and unilateral primary hip replacement due to OA
Exclusion criteria: cardiopulmonary, neurological, or cognitive problems

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 2 LL and standard care
Equipment: sandbags strapped to the ankle of the operated leg during hospitalization, after day 7, Technogym International machines
Intensity: week 0‐6, 20 to 12 RM; the last 6 weeks, 8 RM
Frequency: daily during hospitalization, Ex3 after day 7
Reps/Sets: week 0‐6, 10/ 3‐5; the last 6 weeks, 8/3‐5
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: not reported
Supervision: physical therapist
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: home‐based standard care

Outcomes

Muscle strength
Gait speed
Stair climbing
Sit‐to‐stand
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

SD was calculated from SE

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Sullivan 2005

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: done by a biostatistician
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: yes for the testosterone
Loss to follow‐up: 2/17 in low resistance group with placebo, 4/17 in high resistance group with placebo
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 17‐HI; N = 17‐LI
Sample: recent functional decline
Age: mean 78.2 years (SD = 6.4)
Inclusion criteria: recent functional decline, at least 65 years old, serum total testosterone less than 480 ngd/L, and can give informed consent
Exclusion criteria: near terminal medical disorder, unresolved malignancy, prostate specific antigen > 10 ngm/L, possibility of prostate cancer, history of prostate cancer, disabling arthritis, neurological diseases or unstable cardiovascular disease

Interventions

PRT (High intensity versus low intensity)
Type of Ex: 2 LL
Equipment: Keiser Sport Health Equipment
Intensity: low intensity: 20% 1RM; high intensity: 80% of 1 RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: not reported
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 99%

Outcomes

Muscle strength
Sit‐to‐stand
Gait speed
Stair climb
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Reported absolute change. High‐intensity leg exercise led to greater leg strength, No significance in aggregate physical performance score change between any intervention groups. Final score = baseline + change score. Final SD = baseline SD
Date from high intensity PRT and low intensity PRT were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Low risk

A ‐ Adequate
Symons 2005

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: random selection with continuing replacement method
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 5/14 in isokinetic eccentric group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Canada
N = 10‐isokinetic concentric; N = 14‐isokinetic eccentric
Sample: healthy adults
Age: mean 72 years
Inclusion criteria: free of any debilitating cardiovascular, lower limb musculoskeletal or neuromuscular limitations; had not participated in resistance training for a period of at least 6 months
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT (isokinet concentric versus excentric)
Type of Ex: voluntary contractions of the knee extensors using the specific contraction type of the training group
Equipment: Biodex dynamometer
Intensity: 10 RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/3
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: not reported (Gym?)
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 90%

Outcomes

Muscle strength
Stair climb
Gait speed
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Eccentric versus concentric

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Taaffe 1996

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: high intensity training, low intensity and control (high‐intensity only used for main comparisons)
Method of randomisation: not reported
Participant blinding: no
Assessor blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 11 total (5 from HI PRT and control)
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 36 total (23 in control and main PRT group)
Sample: healthy older women
Age: mean 67 years (SE 0.2) in HI‐PRT group
Inclusion criteria: female, did not participate in a strength‐training program; not taking HRT or on HRT for more than one year
Exclusion criteria: evidence of acute or uncontrolled chronic illness or condition that would prevent participation in a resistance training program; presence of vertebral compression fracture; evidence of any disorder that would affect bone metabolism

Interventions

PRT (high intensity and low intensity) versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 3LL
Equipment: weight machines (Universal Gym, and Marcy equipment)
Intensity: HI‐80% of 1RM; LI‐40% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: HI= first set at 40% 1RM for 14 reps, last 2 had 7 reps; LI=14/3
Program Duration: 52 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: 79%
2. Control Group: maintain customary dietary and activity patterns

Outcomes

Strength (1RM),
Habitual activity ( 4 day activity records)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Date from high intensity PRT and low intensity PRT were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Taaffe 1999

Methods

RCT with 4 groups, PRT once per week, twice per week, 3 times per week and control (main analyses with 3 times per week and control)
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 7 total (2 in control and Ex3)
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no, but 24 weeks duration

Participants

Location: USA
N = 46 total (25 in Ex3 and control)
Sample: community‐dwelling, healthy men and women
Age: mean 71.0 years (SD 4.1) in Ex3 group
Inclusion criteria: aged 65‐79 years, apparently healthy, BMI<30, no musculoskeletal disorder that could inhibit them from exercising, no weight training in previous 12 months, passed medical screening (including maximum exercise stress test)

Interventions

PRT (at different frequencies) versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 6UL, 6LL
Equipment: Universal Gym, Marcy and Nautilus equipment
Intensity: 80% 1RM
Frequency: Ex1, Ex2, Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Program Duration: 24 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: 97‐99%
2. Control Group: maintain customary dietary and activity patterns

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Timed backward tandem walk
Chair rise
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Data from 3 times per week and one time per week group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Topp 1993

Methods

RCT (note: results extrapolated from graph)
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no but attention control group
Loss to follow‐up: 7
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 63
Sample: community‐dwelling men and women
Age: mean 69.2 years (SE 0.8) in the PRT group
Inclusion criteria: community‐dwelling, 65+,
Exclusion criteria: cardiopulmonary/ cardiovascular disease, intolerance to exercise, functional disabilities that would contraindicate strength training, unable to commit to a 12‐week program, currently involved in strength training more than 1 hour per week

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 6UL, 6LL
Equipment: surgical tubing
Intensity: low‐moderate ‐ increased tubing thickness when they could perform 12 reps of an exercise
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: upper body 10/ 2; lower body 10/ 3
Program Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: exercise class for at least one session per week, home for other session(s)
Supervision: full in exercise class, low at home
Adherence: 90%
2. Control Group: attended two 3‐hour driver education classes, continue usual activities, could have 4 weeks of exercise at the end of the trial

Outcomes

Gait speed
Balance (modified Romberg protocol)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Topp 1996

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no, but attention control group
Loss to follow‐up: 19
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no ‐ excluded people who completed <70% of prescribed sessions
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 61
Sample: community‐dwelling, sedentary
Age: mean 70.8 years (SE 1.03) in exercise group
Inclusion criteria: community dwelling older adults
Exclusion criteria: any contraindications to participating in regular exercise including a history of coronary artery disease, more than one major coronary risk factor or major symptoms or signs of cardiopulmonary or metabolic disease evident during a medically supervised history and physical; already participating in a program of regular resistance training, unable to make a 14‐week commitment to the project

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 11 exercises (UL, LL, Tr)
Equipment: theraband
Intensity: low‐moderate ‐ used theraband of a thickness sufficient to produce moderate fatigue during the final 2 reps of an exercise
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: by end of study, 2/10 for UL, 3/10 for LL
Program duration:14 weeks
Setting: exercise class at least once per week, home for other session(s)
Supervision: full for exercise class, none for home
Adherence: 93% (excluding drop‐outs)
2. Control Group: two 3‐hour supervised driver‐education classes

Outcomes

Strength
Postural control (measured using a force plate)
Gait speed
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Topp 2002

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: N/A
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 35
Sample: adults with knee OA
Age: mean = 65.57 years (SD = 1.82) estimated
Inclusion criteria: knee pain due to OA (based on WOMAC); physician validated the knee pain and the diagnosis of OA
Exclusion criteria: had any contraindications for exercise, including a history of uncontrolled angina, cardiomyopathy severe enough to compromise cardiac functioning, electrolyte or metabolic disturbances, disabilities that prohibited resistance training of the lower extremities, or if they were currently taking nitrates, digitalis, or phenothiazine. Individuals were also excluded if they were currently participating in an organized exercise program or exercised more than 1 hour per week.

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 6 LL for 30 minutes
Equipment: Thera‐Band elastic bands
Intensity: self exertion of mild fatigue after 8RM
Frequency: Ex3 (2 at home 1 at gym)
Reps/Sets: increasing reps and sets every week and then reached 12 reps/3sets at week 9 to 16
Duration: 16 weeks
Setting: home and gym
Supervision: provided in the gym
Adherence: each participant had exercise log, but results were not reported
2. Control Group: no intervention

Outcomes

WOMAC
Knee pain
Stair climbing
Down and up off the floor
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Calculated SDs from reported SEMs

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Topp 2005

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: PRT, control, and aerobic groups
Method of randomisation: two‐coin‐flip methodology
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: yes, but the number was not reported
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: not reported
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 66 (31 in each group)
Sample: older adults with limited functional ability, community dwelling
Age: mean 74.1 years (SD = 6.2)
Inclusion criteria: score lower then 24 in physical function domain of SF‐36
Exclusion criteria: could not climb 26 stairs in 126 seconds; had contraindications to exercise

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus aerobic
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 12 exercises
Equipment: Thera‐Band elastic bands
Intensity: self exertion of mild fatigue after 8RM
Frequency: Ex3 (2 at home 1 at gym)
Reps/Sets: started with 10/1‐2, mild fatigue; then increased to 10/3 moderate fatigue at week 8 to week 16
Duration: 16 weeks
Setting: home and gym
Supervision: provided in the gym
Adherence: each participant had exercise log, but results were not reported Participants in the final analysis had 70% compliance rate.
2. Control Group: no intervention, maintain usual activities
3. Aerobic walking group: N=33, 3 times/week; between 50% METs to 75% METs; endurance increased from 10 minutes to 35 minutes

Outcomes

Arm curls (repetitions)
Chair rise (repetitions)
Stair ascend/descend
Down and up off the floor
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Numerical results of SDs were not reported. Data were not pooled.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Tracy 2004

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 0 (?)
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: N/A
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 20 (11 in PRT)
Sample: healthy older adults
Age: mean 73.1 years (SD = 4.9)
Inclusion criteria: no neurological disease, free of medications known to affect the outcome measures; less than 3 hours a week of low to moderate intensity endurance exercise
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex : knee extension, each leg trained separately
Equipment: weight‐stack machine (Icarian)
Intensity: 80% of 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 10/3
Duration: 16 weeks
Setting: lab
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: no training involved

Outcomes

Primary: physical function tests (including gait speed, chair rise, stair ascent/descent)
Secondary: muscle strength (1RM)
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Tsutsumi 1997

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: High‐intensity PRT, low‐intensity PRT, and control
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 1
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 42 total (28 in HI and control)
Sample: sedentary, healthy
Age: mean 68.9 years (SD 5.7 years)
Inclusion criteria: aged 60+, medically healthy, sedentary (no involvement in regular exercise for the previous 6 months)
Exclusion criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 7UL/2LL, 2Tr
Equipment: dynamic variable resistance weight machines
Intensity: HI‐75‐85% 1RM; LI‐55‐65% 1RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: HI 8‐12/2; LI 12‐16/2
Program duration: 12 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: not reported

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Aerobic capacity (VO2 max; bicycle ergometer testing)
SF‐36
Physical self‐efficacy
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Date from high intensity PRT and low intensity PRT were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Tyni‐Lenne 2001

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 0
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Sweden
N = 24
Sample: people with moderate to severe CHF
Age: mean 63 years (SD 9) in PRT group
Inclusion criteria: diagnosed with CHF; medically stable CHF in New York Heart Association Class II or III
Exclusion criteria: angina pectoris, valvular heart disease determined by Doppler, co‐morbidity such as intermittent claudication, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or any other disorder limiting physical performance other than heart failure

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: many UL and LL exercises
Equipment: theraband
Intensity: low‐moderate, used Borg rating scale and increased resistance when people rated peripheral resistance <13
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 25/2
Program Duration: 8 weeks
Setting: group activity
Supervision: full
Adherence: 95%
2. Control Group: not reported

Outcomes

Aerobic capacity ( Peak VO2 and 6 minute walk test)
Quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Index)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Vincent 2002

Methods

RCT with 3 groups: High‐intensity PRT, low‐intensity PRT and control
Method of randomisation: stratified by strength, randomised using a random numbers table
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 22
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 38 (in HI group and control); N=36‐LL
Sample: healthy men and women
Age: mean 67 years (SD 7)
Inclusion criteria: free from cardiovascular or orthopedic problems that would limit exercise (assessment included physical exam), had not participated in resistance exercise for at least one year
Excludion Criteria: not reported

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5UL/ 6LL
Equipment: resistance machines (MedX)
Intensity: high intensity: (80% of 1RM); low Intensity: (50% of 1RM)
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: high Intensity: 8/1; low Intensity: 13/1
Program Duration: 6 months
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: excluded those who completed less than 85% of sessions
2. Control Group: instructed not to make any changes in their lifestyle during the study

Outcomes

Strength (1RM)
Peak VO2 (update)
Stair climb (update)
Comments on adverse events: yes

Notes

Added results from more recent publications
Date from high intensity PRT and low intensity PRT were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B‐ Unclear
Westhoff 2000

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 5
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: The Netherlands
N = 26
Sample: low knee‐extensor muscle strength
Age: mean 75.9 years (SD 6.8) in the exercise group
Inclusion criteria: local residents 65 years and over
Exclusion criteria: maximum knee extensor torque for both legs >87.5 Nm, self‐reported disease or condition such as uncontrolled heart failure or a neurological disease that would be adversely affected by the exercises in the program

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus aerobic
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5UL, 3LL
Equipment: resistance training machines
Intensity: 75% of 5RM at first, progressed to 8‐12RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets 8‐12/1‐2
Program Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: excluded those who did not have 80% or more attendance
2. Control Group: asked not to make significant changes in their physical activity and nutrition habits over a 12‐week period
3. Aerobic Training: trained on treadmills and cycle ergometers 3 times per week at 60‐70% estimated HR reserve, for 21‐ 45 minutes per session

Outcomes

Strength (maximum torque measured by the Quadriso‐tester)
Gronigen Activity Restriction Scale, an ADL/IADL Index with scores from 18 (no limitations) to 72 (fully dependent)
Timed walking test
Timed up‐and‐go
Balance (FICSIT balance test, graded from 1‐6)
Comments on adverse events: yes ( asked about complaints during exercise)

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Wieser 2007

Methods

RCT
Method of randomisation: used www.randomization.com
Assessor blinding: not reported
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 0 in PRT group, 4/14 in the control group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: Austria
N = 28 (14 in each group)
Sample: healthy older adults
Age: mean 76.2 years (SD = 3.2)
Inclusion criteria: older than 70 years, healthy cardio‐pulmonary system, untrained
Exclusion criteria: participated in a resistance training program; or cardiac arrhythmia, recent myocardial infarct, stroke, cancer, or an ill‐treated hypertonia

Interventions

PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 4UL/1LL
Equipment: machines
Intensity: increase weight after 10th repetitions
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/sets week 1‐4: 8/1 week 5‐8: 8/3; week 9‐12: 8/4
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: not reported
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: not reported, provided make‐up sessions
2. Control Group: not reported

Outcomes

VO2max
Muscle strength
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Numerical results of muscle strength were not reported

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear
Wood 2001

Methods

RCT with 4 groups: PRT alone, aerobic training alone, combined PRT and aerobic training and control
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 9 in four groups ‐ drop outs not reported by group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no

Participants

Location: USA
N = 45 total (16 in PRT and control)
Sample: healthy older people
Age: mean 69.8 years (SD 6) in PRT
Inclusion criteria: aged 60‐84, no diseases or conditions that would put them at high risk for adverse responses to exercise
Inclusion criteria: history of surviving sudden cardiac death, recent myocardial infarction, unstable angina, poorly controlled hypertension, poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, frequent or complex ventricular ectopy, significant cognitive dysfunction that might interfere with one's ability to adhere to exercise protocols, in the inflammatory stage of arthritis, receiving medical treatment for osteoporosis

Interventions

PRT versus control and versus aerobic
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5UL, 3LL
Equipment: resistance training machines
Intensity: 75% of 5RM at first, progressed to 8‐12RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets 8‐12 from progressed from 1 set to 2 sets
Program Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: gym
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: excluded those who did not have 80% or more attendance
2. Control Group: asked not to make significant changes in their physical activity and nutrition habits over a 12‐week period
3. Aerobic Training: trained on treadmills and cycle ergometers 3 times per week at 60‐70% estimated HR reserve, for 21‐ 45 minutes per session

Outcomes

Strength (5RM)
Submaximal aerobic capacity
Co‐ordination
Comments on adverse events: no

Notes

Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Allocation concealment?

Unclear risk

B ‐ Unclear

ADL: activities of daily living
Age: overall age of all groups. If this is not available age for progressive resistance training group alone is reported
CHF: congestive heart failure
CHD:coronary heart disease
COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Ex: exercise
Ex1: exercise once per week
Ex2: exercise twice per week
Ex3: exercise three times per week
HI: high intensity
MI: Medium intensity
LI: low intensity
LL: lower limb
METs: maximum metabolic equivalents
MMSE: the Mini‐Mental State Examination
N: number of participants allocated to strength training group and control group; or number of participants allocated to additional intervention group
NA: not applicable
OA: osteoarthritis
PAD: peripheral arterial disease RCT: Randomised controlled trial
PRT: progressive resistance strength training Reps: repetitions
RM: repetition maximum
SF‐36: Medical Outcome Studies 36 Item Short Form questionnaire
Tr: trunk
TUAG: timed "up‐and‐go" test
UL: upper limb
WOMAC: Western Ontario/McMaster Universities Arthritis Index

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Ir a:

Study

Reason for exclusion

Adami 1999

Not a RCT

Adams 2001

Participants too young (mean age <60)

Agre 1988

Not a RCT

Alexander 2003

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Aniansson 1981

Not a RCT

Annesi 2004

Combined intervention program ‐ not PRT alone

Ardman 1998

Not a RCT

Ballard 2004

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Barbosa 2002

Not a RCT

Baum 2003b

Does not meet criteria for PRT

Bean 2002

Does not meet criteria for PRT

Bellew 2003

Not a RCT

Beniamini 1997

Participants too young (mean age <60)

Beniamini 1999

Participants too young (mean age <60)

Berg 1998

Not a RCT

Bernard 1999

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Bilodeau 2000

Participants too young (mean age <60)

Binda 2003

Does not meet for criteria for PRT

Binder 2002

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Boardley 2007

No relevant outcomes to the review

Braith 2005

No relevant outcomes to the review

Brandon 2003b

Does not meet the criteria for PRT ‐ not progressive

Brandon 2004

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Brill 1998

Not a RCT

Brose 2003

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Brown 1990

Not a RCT

Brown 1991

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Brown 2000

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Bunout 2001

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Campbell 2002

No relevant outcomes to the review

Campbell 2004

No relevant outcomes to the review

Cancela 2003

Article cannot be located.

Candow 2004

Combined program (with supplement) ‐ not PRT alone

Capodaglio 2002

Not a RCT

Carter 2002

Does not meet the criteria for PRT

Carter 2005

Included participants younger than 60

Carvalho 2002

No relevant outcomes to the review

Cauza 2005

No relevant outcomes to the review

Cauza 2005b

Included young participants (younger than 60 years old)

Chaloupka 2000

Participants too young (mean age <60)

Chetlin 2004

Included young participants (younger than 60 years old)

Chiba 2006

Not a RCT

Chien 2005

Does not meet the criteria for PRT

Connelly 1995

Not a RCT

Connelly 2000

Not a RCT

Cramp 2006

Not a RCT

Cress 1991

Not a RCT

Cress 1999

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Daepp 2006

Does not meet the criteria for PRT

Daly 2005

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

de Bruin 2007

No relevant comparisons to the review

de Vito 1999

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

DeBolt 2004

Included young participants (younger than 60 years old)

Delagardelle 2002

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Delecluse 2004

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

DeVito 2003

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Dibble 2006

Not a RCT

Dibble 2006b

Not a RCT

Dunstan 2002

Not PRT alone ‐ with eating plan

Dunstan 2005

Not PRT alone ‐ with eating plan

Dupler 1993

Not a RCT

Fernandez Ramirez 99

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Ferrara 2006

Not a RCT

Ferri 2003

Not a RCT

Fiatarone 1990

Not a RCT

Fisher 1991

Not a RCT

Forte 2003

Not a RCT

Frontera 1988

Not a RCT

Frontera 1990

Not a RCT

Galvao 2006

Not a RCT

Grimby 1992

Not a RCT

Gur 2002

Included young participants (younger than 60 years old)

Hageman 2002

Not a RCT

Hakkinen 1999

Participants too young (mean age <60)

Hameed 2004

Combined program (with hormone intervention)

Hartard 1996

Not a RCT

Haub 2002

Combined program (protein) ‐ not PRT alone

Heiwe 2005

No relevant outcomes to the review

Henwood 2006

Does not meet the criteria for PRT ‐ not progressive

Hess 2005

Not a RCT

Hess 2006

Not a RCT

Hirsch 2003

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Host 2007

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Huggett 2004

No relevant outcomes to the review

Hughes 2004

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Humphries 2000

Participants too young (mean age <60)

Hung 2004

Does not meet the criteria for PRT

Hunter 1995

Not a RCT

Hunter 2002

Not a RCT

Ibanez 2005

Not a RCT

Ivey 2000

Not a RCT

Johansen 2006

Included young participants (younger than 60 years old)

Jones 1987

Participants too young (mean age <60)

Judge 2005

No relevant outcomes to the review

Katula 2006

Not a RCT

Kerr 2001

No relevant outcomes to the review

Kolbe‐Alexander 2006

Not a RCT

Komatireddy 1997

Participants too young (mean age <60)

La Forge 2002

No relevant outcomes to the review

Labarque 2002

Training did not meet criteria for PRT

Lambert 2002

No relevant outcomes to the review

Lambert 2003

Combined program (with hormone) ‐ not PRT alone

Lamotte 2005

No relevant outcomes to the review

Levinger 2005

Included young participants (younger than 60 years old)

Lexell 1992

Not a RCT

Lexell 1995

Not a RCT (not clearly stated that patients were randomised)

Littbrand 2006

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Liu 2004

Training did not meet criteria for PRT ‐ not progressive

Liu‐Ambrose 2004

No relevant outcomes to the review

Loeppky 2005

Does not meet the criteria for PRT

Lohman 1995

Participants too young (mean age <60)

Maddalozzo 2000

Participants too young (mean age <60)

Magnusson 1996

Participants too young (mean age <60)

Marcora 2005

Not a RCT

Martin Ginis 2006

No relevant comparisons to the review

McCool 1991

Not a RCT

McMurdo 1994

Training did not meet criteria for PRT

Mobily 2004

Not a RCT

Morey 1989

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Morey 1991

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Morse 2005

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Narici 1989

Participants too young (mean age <60)

Nelson 1997

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Ochala 2005

Training did not meet criteria for PRT

Ohira 2006

Training did not meet criteria for PRT ‐ not progressive/included young participants

Oka 2000

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Okawa 2004

Included younger participants (middle age)

Okumiya 1996

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Panton 2004

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Parsons 1992

Not a RCT

Perhonen 1992

Training did not meet criteria for PRT

Perkins 1961

Training did not meet criteria for PRT

Perrig‐Chiello 1998

No relevant outcomes to the review

Petrella 2000

Training did not meet criteria for PRT

Phillips 2004

Not a RCT

Pyka 1994

Serious threats to internal validity ‐ participants allowed to move from exercise to control group‐Not a RCT

Rabelo 2004

Training did not meet criteria for PRT ‐ not progressive

Ramsbottom 2004

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Reeves 2004b

Does not meet the criteria for PRT

Reeves 2005

Not a RCT

Reeves 2006

Does not meet the criteria for PRT

Richards 1996

Not a RCT

Roman 1993

Not a RCT

Rooks 1997

Training did not meet criteria for PRT

Salli 2006

Training did not meet criteria for PRT ‐ not progressive

Sallinen 2006

Combined program (with diet) ‐ not PRT alone

Sanders 1998

Not a RCT

Sartorio 2001

No relevant outcomes to the review

Sauvage 1992

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Sayers 2003

Not a RCT

Schott 2006

Combined program (with supplement) ‐ not PRT alone

Sharp 1997

Not a RCT

Shaw 1998

Not a RCT

Sherrington 1997

Training did not meet criteria for PRT

Signorile 2005

Does not meet the criteria for PRT ‐ not progressive

Sinaki 1996

Participants too young (mean age <60)

Sipila 1994

Not a RCT

Spruit 2002

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Sullivan 2001

Not a RCT

Taaffe 1997

Not a RCT

Teixeira 2002

Does not meet the criteria for PRT

Teixeira 2003

Included young participants (younger than 60 years old)

Teixeira‐Salm. 2005

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Thielman 2004

No relevant outcomes to the review

Thomas 2004

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Thomas 2005

Training did not meet criteria for PRT ‐ The resistance was not progressively increased

Thompson 1988

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Timonen 2002

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Timonen 2006

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Timonen 2006b

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Treuth 1994

Not a RCT

Trudelle‐Jack. 2004

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Tsuji 2000

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Vad 2002

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Vale 2003

Article cannot be identified

Valkeinen 2005

Participants too young (mean age of the control group < 60)

Van den Ende 2000

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Vanbiervliet 2003

Included young participants (younger than 60 years old)

Veloso 2003

Does not meet the criteria for PRT

Verfaillie 1997

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Villareal 2003

Combined program (with hormone)‐not PRT alone

Villareal 2006b

Combined program ‐ not PRT alone

Vincent 2002b

No relevant outcomes to the review

Vincent 2003

No relevant outcomes to the review

Vincent 2006

Included young participants (younger than 60 years old)

Woo 2007

Training did not meet criteria for PRT. The resistance was not progressively increased

Yang 2006

Does not meet the criteria for PRT

Zion 2003

Not a RCT

RCT = randomised controlled trial; PRT = progressive resistance strength training

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. PRT versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main function measure (higher score = better function) Show forest plot

33

2172

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.14 [0.05, 0.22]
Analysis 1.1
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).

2 Physical function domain of SF‐36/SF‐12 (Higher score = better function) Show forest plot

14

778

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.07 [‐0.08, 0.21]
Analysis 1.2
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 2 Physical function domain of SF‐36/SF‐12 (Higher score = better function).

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 2 Physical function domain of SF‐36/SF‐12 (Higher score = better function).

3 Activities of daily living measure (higher score = better function) Show forest plot

3

330

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.04 [‐0.18, 0.26]
Analysis 1.3
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 3 Activities of daily living measure (higher score = better function).

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 3 Activities of daily living measure (higher score = better function).

4 Activity level measure (kJ/week) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.4
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 4 Activity level measure (kJ/week).

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 4 Activity level measure (kJ/week).

5 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure Show forest plot

73

3059

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.67, 1.00]
Analysis 1.5
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 5 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 5 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.

6 Main measure of aerobic function Show forest plot

29

1138

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.31 [0.09, 0.53]
Analysis 1.6
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 6 Main measure of aerobic function.

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 6 Main measure of aerobic function.

7 VO2 or peak oxygen uptake Show forest plot

19

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 1.7
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 7 VO2 or peak oxygen uptake.

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 7 VO2 or peak oxygen uptake.

7.1 VO2max‐ml/kg.min

18

710

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.50 [0.49, 2.51]

7.2 Peak oxygen uptake‐L/min

2

47

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.04, 0.24]

8 Six‐minute walk test (meters) Show forest plot

11

325

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

52.37 [17.38, 87.37]
Analysis 1.8
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 8 Six‐minute walk test (meters).

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 8 Six‐minute walk test (meters).

9 Balance measures (higher = better balance) Show forest plot

17

996

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐0.00, 0.25]
Analysis 1.9
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 9 Balance measures (higher = better balance).

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 9 Balance measures (higher = better balance).

10 Balance measures (Low = better balance) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 1.10
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 10 Balance measures (Low = better balance).

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 10 Balance measures (Low = better balance).

10.1 PRT (high intensity) versus control

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.2 PRT (low intensity) versus control

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Gait speed (m/s) Show forest plot

24

1179

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.08 [0.04, 0.12]
Analysis 1.11
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 11 Gait speed (m/s).

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 11 Gait speed (m/s).

12 Timed walk (seconds) Show forest plot

8

204

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.23 [‐1.07, 0.62]
Analysis 1.12
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 12 Timed walk (seconds).

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 12 Timed walk (seconds).

13 Timed "Up‐and‐Go" (seconds) Show forest plot

12

691

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.69 [‐1.11, ‐0.27]
Analysis 1.13
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 13 Timed "Up‐and‐Go" (seconds).

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 13 Timed "Up‐and‐Go" (seconds).

14 Time to stand from a chair Show forest plot

11

384

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.94 [‐1.49, ‐0.38]
Analysis 1.14
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 14 Time to stand from a chair.

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 14 Time to stand from a chair.

15 Stair climbing (seconds) Show forest plot

8

268

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.44 [‐2.51, ‐0.37]
Analysis 1.15
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 15 Stair climbing (seconds).

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 15 Stair climbing (seconds).

16 Chair stand within time limit (number of times) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 1.16
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 16 Chair stand within time limit (number of times).

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 16 Chair stand within time limit (number of times).

17 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality) Show forest plot

10

611

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.33 [‐0.89, 3.55]
Analysis 1.17
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 17 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 17 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).

18 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐36) Show forest plot

10

587

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [‐3.44, 4.12]
Analysis 1.18
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 18 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐36).

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 18 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐36).

19 Pain (lower score = less pain) Show forest plot

6

503

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.30 [‐0.48, ‐0.13]
Analysis 1.19
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 19 Pain (lower score = less pain).

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 19 Pain (lower score = less pain).

20 Death Show forest plot

13

1125

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.52, 1.54]
Analysis 1.20
Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 20 Death.

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 20 Death.
Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. High versus low intensity PRT

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main function measure (higher score = better function) Show forest plot

2

62

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.17 [‐0.67, 0.33]
Analysis 2.1
Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).

Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).

2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure Show forest plot

9

219

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.03, 0.93]
Analysis 2.2
Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.

Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.

3 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min) Show forest plot

3

101

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.82 [‐0.79, 4.43]
Analysis 2.3
Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 3 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min).

Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 3 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min).

4 Pain (higher score = less pain) Show forest plot

2

62

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.05 [‐0.55, 0.45]
Analysis 2.4
Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 4 Pain (higher score = less pain).

Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 4 Pain (higher score = less pain).

5 Vitality (SF‐36, higher score = more vitality) Show forest plot

2

62

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.54 [0.69, 12.39]
Analysis 2.5
Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 5 Vitality (SF‐36, higher score = more vitality).

Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 5 Vitality (SF‐36, higher score = more vitality).

Open in table viewer
Comparison 3. High versus variable intensity PRT

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 3.1
Comparison 3 High versus variable intensity PRT, Outcome 1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.

Comparison 3 High versus variable intensity PRT, Outcome 1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.

2 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 3.2
Comparison 3 High versus variable intensity PRT, Outcome 2 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min).

Comparison 3 High versus variable intensity PRT, Outcome 2 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min).
Open in table viewer
Comparison 4. PRT frequency

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main LL strength measure Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 4.1
Comparison 4 PRT frequency, Outcome 1 Main LL strength measure.

Comparison 4 PRT frequency, Outcome 1 Main LL strength measure.

1.1 Three times versus once per week

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Twice versus once per week

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Open in table viewer
Comparison 5. PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 5.1
Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.

Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.

2 Six‐minute walk test (meters) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 5.2
Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 2 Six‐minute walk test (meters).

Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 2 Six‐minute walk test (meters).

3 Timed walk (seconds) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 5.3
Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 3 Timed walk (seconds).

Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 3 Timed walk (seconds).

4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 5.4
Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds).

Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds).

5 Stair climbing (seconds) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 5.5
Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 5 Stair climbing (seconds).

Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 5 Stair climbing (seconds).
Open in table viewer
Comparison 6. PRT versus aerobic training

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main function measure (higher score = better function) Show forest plot

4

125

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.21 [‐0.56, 0.15]
Analysis 6.1
Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).

2 Main function measure (lower score = better function) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 6.2
Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 2 Main function measure (lower score = better function).

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 2 Main function measure (lower score = better function).

3 Main lower limb strength measure Show forest plot

10

487

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.44 [0.08, 0.80]
Analysis 6.3
Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 3 Main lower limb strength measure.

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 3 Main lower limb strength measure.

4 VO2 max (ml/kg.min) Show forest plot

8

423

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.13 [‐2.63, 0.38]
Analysis 6.4
Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 4 VO2 max (ml/kg.min).

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 4 VO2 max (ml/kg.min).

5 Six minute walk test (meters) Show forest plot

2

63

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.28 [‐48.24, 39.67]
Analysis 6.5
Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 5 Six minute walk test (meters).

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 5 Six minute walk test (meters).

6 Gait speed (m/s) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 6.6
Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 6 Gait speed (m/s).

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 6 Gait speed (m/s).

7 Pain (lower score = less pain) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 6.7
Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 7 Pain (lower score = less pain).

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 7 Pain (lower score = less pain).
Open in table viewer
Comparison 7. PRT versus functional exercise

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main function measure (higher score = better function) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 7.1
Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).

Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).

2 Main lower limb strength measure Show forest plot

3

158

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐6.51 [‐21.05, 8.04]
Analysis 7.2
Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 2 Main lower limb strength measure.

Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 2 Main lower limb strength measure.

3 Timed "Up‐and‐Go" (seconds) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 7.3
Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 3 Timed "Up‐and‐Go" (seconds).

Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 3 Timed "Up‐and‐Go" (seconds).

4 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality) Show forest plot

2

147

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐2.68, 2.54]
Analysis 7.4
Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 4 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).

Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 4 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).

5 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐36) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 7.5
Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 5 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐36).

Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 5 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐36).

Open in table viewer
Comparison 8. PRT versus flexibility training

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 SF36 (higher score = better function) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 8.1
Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 1 SF36 (higher score = better function).

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 1 SF36 (higher score = better function).

2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 8.2
Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.

3 Timed walk (seconds) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 8.3
Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 3 Timed walk (seconds).

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 3 Timed walk (seconds).

4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 8.4
Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds).

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds).

5 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 8.5
Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 5 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 5 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).

6 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐ 36) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 8.6
Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 6 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐ 36).

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 6 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐ 36).

Open in table viewer
Comparison 9. Power training

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main lower limb strength measure Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Analysis 9.1
Comparison 9 Power training, Outcome 1 Main lower limb strength measure.

Comparison 9 Power training, Outcome 1 Main lower limb strength measure.

1.1 High intensity (power treatment) versus control (control)

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 High intensity (treatment) versus low intensity (control)

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Open in table viewer
Comparison 10. PRT versus control supplementary analyses

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Strength (grouped by allocation concealment) Show forest plot

73

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 10.1
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 1 Strength (grouped by allocation concealment).

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 1 Strength (grouped by allocation concealment).

1.1 Allocation concealed

6

607

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐0.04, 0.28]

1.2 Concealment unknown

67

2452

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.56, 0.73]

2 Strength (grouped by assessor blinding) Show forest plot

73

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only
Analysis 10.2
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 2 Strength (grouped by assessor blinding).

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 2 Strength (grouped by assessor blinding).

2.1 Blinded assessors

19

1523

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.13, 0.34]

2.2 Assessors were not blinded

54

1536

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.77, 0.99]

3 Strength (grouped by intention‐to‐treat) Show forest plot

73

3059

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.46, 0.61]
Analysis 10.3
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 3 Strength (grouped by intention‐to‐treat).

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 3 Strength (grouped by intention‐to‐treat).

3.1 Intention‐to‐treat was used

12

1041

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.18 [0.06, 0.30]

3.2 Intention‐to‐treat was not used

61

2018

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.64, 0.83]

4 Strength (grouped by attention control) Show forest plot

73

3059

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.46, 0.61]
Analysis 10.4
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 4 Strength (grouped by attention control).

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 4 Strength (grouped by attention control).

4.1 Attention control

24

1408

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.23, 0.44]

4.2 No attention control

49

1651

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.61, 0.82]

5 Strength (grouped by exercise intensity) Show forest plot

72

3052

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.45, 0.60]
Analysis 10.5
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 5 Strength (grouped by exercise intensity).

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 5 Strength (grouped by exercise intensity).

5.1 High intensity

54

2026

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.51, 0.70]

5.2 Low‐to‐moderate intensity

19

1026

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.26, 0.51]

6 Strength (grouped by exercise duration) Show forest plot

56

2564

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.45, 0.61]
Analysis 10.6
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 6 Strength (grouped by exercise duration).

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 6 Strength (grouped by exercise duration).

6.1 Less than 12 weeks

20

828

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.37, 0.66]

6.2 Longer than 12 weeks

36

1736

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.43, 0.63]

7 Strength (grouped by health status) Show forest plot

65

2428

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.52, 0.69]
Analysis 10.7
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 7 Strength (grouped by health status).

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 7 Strength (grouped by health status).

7.1 Healthy participants

46

1502

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.66, 0.88]

7.2 Older adults with a specific health problem

19

926

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.37 [0.24, 0.51]

8 Strength (grouped by functional limitations) Show forest plot

54

2133

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.51, 0.70]
Analysis 10.8
Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 8 Strength (grouped by functional limitations).

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 8 Strength (grouped by functional limitations).

8.1 No functional limitations

41

1349

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.69, 0.93]

8.2 With functional limitations

13

784

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [0.16, 0.44]

Forest plot of comparison: 1 PRT versus control, outcome: 1.1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Forest plot of comparison: 1 PRT versus control, outcome: 1.1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 2 Physical function domain of SF‐36/SF‐12 (Higher score = better function).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 2 Physical function domain of SF‐36/SF‐12 (Higher score = better function).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 3 Activities of daily living measure (higher score = better function).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 3 Activities of daily living measure (higher score = better function).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 4 Activity level measure (kJ/week).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 4 Activity level measure (kJ/week).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 5 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 5 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 6 Main measure of aerobic function.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 6 Main measure of aerobic function.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 7 VO2 or peak oxygen uptake.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 7 VO2 or peak oxygen uptake.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 8 Six‐minute walk test (meters).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 8 Six‐minute walk test (meters).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 9 Balance measures (higher = better balance).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 9 Balance measures (higher = better balance).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 10 Balance measures (Low = better balance).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 10 Balance measures (Low = better balance).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 11 Gait speed (m/s).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 11 Gait speed (m/s).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 12 Timed walk (seconds).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 12 Timed walk (seconds).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 13 Timed "Up‐and‐Go" (seconds).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 13 Timed "Up‐and‐Go" (seconds).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 14 Time to stand from a chair.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 14 Time to stand from a chair.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 15 Stair climbing (seconds).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 15 Stair climbing (seconds).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 16 Chair stand within time limit (number of times).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 16 Chair stand within time limit (number of times).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 17 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 17 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 18 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐36).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 18 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐36).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 19 Pain (lower score = less pain).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 19 Pain (lower score = less pain).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 20 Death.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 20 Death.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 3 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 3 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 4 Pain (higher score = less pain).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 4 Pain (higher score = less pain).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 5 Vitality (SF‐36, higher score = more vitality).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 5 Vitality (SF‐36, higher score = more vitality).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High versus variable intensity PRT, Outcome 1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 High versus variable intensity PRT, Outcome 1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 3 High versus variable intensity PRT, Outcome 2 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 High versus variable intensity PRT, Outcome 2 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 4 PRT frequency, Outcome 1 Main LL strength measure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 PRT frequency, Outcome 1 Main LL strength measure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 2 Six‐minute walk test (meters).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 2 Six‐minute walk test (meters).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 3 Timed walk (seconds).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 3 Timed walk (seconds).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 5 Stair climbing (seconds).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets, Outcome 5 Stair climbing (seconds).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 2 Main function measure (lower score = better function).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.2

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 2 Main function measure (lower score = better function).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 3 Main lower limb strength measure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.3

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 3 Main lower limb strength measure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 4 VO2 max (ml/kg.min).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.4

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 4 VO2 max (ml/kg.min).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 5 Six minute walk test (meters).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.5

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 5 Six minute walk test (meters).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 6 Gait speed (m/s).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.6

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 6 Gait speed (m/s).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 7 Pain (lower score = less pain).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 6.7

Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 7 Pain (lower score = less pain).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 2 Main lower limb strength measure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 2 Main lower limb strength measure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 3 Timed "Up‐and‐Go" (seconds).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 3 Timed "Up‐and‐Go" (seconds).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 4 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.4

Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 4 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 5 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐36).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 7.5

Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 5 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐36).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 1 SF36 (higher score = better function).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 1 SF36 (higher score = better function).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 3 Timed walk (seconds).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 3 Timed walk (seconds).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 5 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.5

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 5 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 6 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐ 36).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 8.6

Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 6 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐ 36).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 9 Power training, Outcome 1 Main lower limb strength measure.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 Power training, Outcome 1 Main lower limb strength measure.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 1 Strength (grouped by allocation concealment).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.1

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 1 Strength (grouped by allocation concealment).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 2 Strength (grouped by assessor blinding).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.2

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 2 Strength (grouped by assessor blinding).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 3 Strength (grouped by intention‐to‐treat).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.3

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 3 Strength (grouped by intention‐to‐treat).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 4 Strength (grouped by attention control).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.4

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 4 Strength (grouped by attention control).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 5 Strength (grouped by exercise intensity).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.5

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 5 Strength (grouped by exercise intensity).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 6 Strength (grouped by exercise duration).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.6

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 6 Strength (grouped by exercise duration).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 7 Strength (grouped by health status).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.7

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 7 Strength (grouped by health status).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 8 Strength (grouped by functional limitations).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 10.8

Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 8 Strength (grouped by functional limitations).

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva
Table 1. Assessment of methodological quality scheme

Items

Scores

Notes

A. Was the assigned treatment adequately concealed prior to allocation?

2 = method did not allow disclosure of assignment.
1 = small but possible chance of disclosure of assignment or unclear.
0 = quasi‐randomised or open list/tables.

B. Were the outcomes of patients/participants who withdrew described and included in the analysis (intention‐to‐treat)?

2 = withdrawals well described and accounted for in analysis.
1 = withdrawals described and analysis not possible.
0 = no mention, inadequate mention, or obvious differences and no adjustment.

C. Were the outcome assessors blind to treatment status?

2 = effective action taken to blind assessors.
1 = small or moderate chance of un blinding of assessors.
0 = not mentioned, or not possible.

D. Were the participants blinded to the treatment status?

2 = effective action taken to blind assessors.
1 = small or moderate chance of un blinding of assessors.
0 = not mentioned, or not possible.

E. Were the treatment and control group comparable at entry? Specifically, were the groups comparable with respect to age, medical co‐morbidities (one or more of history of coronary artery disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes, chronic lung disease), pre‐entry physical dependency (independent vs dependent in self‐care ADL) and mental status (clinical evidence of cognitive impairment, yes or no)?

2 = good comparability of groups, or confounding adjusted for in analysis.
1 = confounding small; mentioned but not adjusted for.
0 = large potential for confounding, or not discussed.

F. Were care programmes, other than the trial options, identical?

2 = care programmes clearly identical.
1 = clear but trivial differences.
0 = not mentioned or clear and important differences in care programmes.

G. Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly defined?

2 = clearly defined.
1 = inadequately defined.
0 = not defined.

H. Were the interventions clearly defined?

2 = clearly defined interventions are applied with a standardised protocol.
1 = clearly defined interventions are applied but the application protocol is not standardised.
0 = intervention and/or application protocol are poorly or not defined.

I. Were the outcome measures used clearly defined?

2 = clearly defined measures and the method of data collection and scoring are clearly described
1 = inadequately defined measures
0 = not defined.

For our primary outcome, physical disability in terms of self‐report measures of physical function, we considered the outcome clearly defined if a validated and standardised scale was used and the method of data collection was clearly described.

Our secondary outcome measures included gait speed, muscle strength (e.g. one repetition maximum test, isokinetic and isometric dynamometry), balance (e.g. Berg Balance Scale, Functional Reach Test), aerobic capacity, and chair rise. These secondary outcomes were considered well defined if validated and standardised measures were used, and the method of data collection and scoring of any scales was clearly described.

J. Was the surveillance active and of clinically appropriate duration (i.e. at least 3 months)?

2 = active and appropriate duration (three months follow‐up or greater).
1 = active but inadequate duration (less than three months follow‐up).
0 = not active or surveillance period not defined.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Assessment of methodological quality scheme
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 2. Quality rating of trials

Study

Concealed allocation

ITT

Assessor blind

Participants blind

Compable at entry

Identical care

Inclusion/ exclusion

Interventions defined

Outcomes defined

Ades 1996

1

0

0

0

2

2

0

2

1

Baker 2001

2

2/0

2/0

2

2

2

2

2

2

Balagopal 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

1

2

Ballor 1996

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Barrett 2002

1

2

2

0

2

2

1

2

2

Baum 2003

1

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Bean 2004

1

1

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Beneka 2005

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Bermon 1999

1

0

0

0

2

1

0

2

2

Boshuizen 2005

1

1

2

0

1

2

2

2

2

Brandon 2000

0

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Brandon 2003

1

1

0

0

2

0

1

2

2

Brochu 2002

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Bruunsgaard 2004

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

1

Buchner 1997

1

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Casaburi 2004

1

1

2

0

2

2

2

2

1

Castaneda 2001

1

1

2/0

2

2

2

2

2

2

Castaneda 2004

1

0

2

0

2

2

1

2

2

Chandler 19981

1

0

1

0

2

2

2

2

2

Charette 1991

1

0

0

0

1

2

0

2

2

Chin A Paw 2006

2

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Collier 1997

1

0

0

0

1

2

1

1

2

Damush 1999

1

0

0

1

2

2

1

1

2

de Vos 20051

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

de Vreede 2007

1

1

2

0

2

2

1

2

2

DeBeliso 2005

1

1

0

0

2

0

1

2

2

DiFrancisco 2007

1

0

0

0

1

2

1

2

2

Donald 2000

2

0

0

0

2

2

0

0

2

Earles 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Ettinger 1997

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

Fahlman 2002

1

0

0

0

1

2

1

2

2

Fatouros 2002

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Fatouros 2005

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Fiatarone 1994

1

2

2/0

1

2

2

2

2

2

Fiatarone 1997

1

0

0

1

0

2

0

2

2

Fielding 2002

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Flynn 1999

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Foley 2003

2

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Frontera 2003

1

0

0

0

2

0

1

2

2

Galvao 2005

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Hagerman 2000

1

0

0

0

2

2

0

2

2

Harris 2004

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Haykowsky 2005

1

1

2

0

0

2

1

2

2

Haykowsky 2000

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

1

2

Hennessey 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Hepple 1997

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Hiatt 1994

1

0

0

0

1

2

2

2

2

Hortobagyi 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Hruda 2003

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Hunter 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

0

2

1

Izquierdo 2004

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Jette 1996

1

0

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Jette 1999

2

0

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Jones 1994

1

0

2

0

2

2

1

2

2

Jubrias 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Judge 1994

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

Kalapotharakos 2005

1

1

2

0

2

2

1

2

2

Kallinen 2002

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Katznelson 2006

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Kongsgaard 2004

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Krebs 2007

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

Lamoureux 2003

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Latham 2001

2

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Latham 2003

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

Liu‐Ambrose 2005

1

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Macaluso 2003

1

2

0

0

0

2

1

2

2

Madden 2006

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Maiorana 1997

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

1

Malliou 2003

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Mangione 2005

1

1

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Manini 2005

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Maurer 1999

1

0

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

McCartney 1995

1

0

0

1

2

2

2

2

1

McGuigan 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

1

McMurdo 1995

2

0

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

Mihalko 1996

1

0

0

1

1

2

0

1

1

Mikesky 2006

1

2

2

0

2

2

1

2

2

Miller 2006

1

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Miszko 2003

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Moreland 2001

2

2

2

1

2

2

0

0

0

Nelson 1994

1

2

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Newnham 1995

1

0

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

Nichols 1993

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

1

Ouellette 2004

1

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Parkhouse 2000

1

0

0

0

1

2

2

1

1

Perrig‐Chiello 1998

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

Pollock 1991

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Pu 2001

1

2

2/0

2

2

2

2

2

2

Rall 1996

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Reeves 2004

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Rhodes 2000

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

1

Schilke 1996

1

0

0

0

2

2

0

1

2

Schlicht 1999

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

1

Segal 2003

1

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Selig 2004

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Seynnes 2004

1

1

0

2

2

2

2

2

2

Simons 2006

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Simoneau 2006

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Simpson 1992

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

1

1

Sims 2006

2

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Singh 1997

1

0

2/0

1

2

2

2

2

2

Singh 2005

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Sipila 1996

1

0

0

0

1

2

1

2

2

Skelton 1995

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Skelton 1996

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

1

Sousa 2005

1

0

0

0

2

0

1

2

2

Suetta 2004

1

1

1

0

2

2

2

2

2

Sullivan 2005

2

2

2

0/2

2

2

2

2

2

Symons 2005

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Taaffe 1996

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Taaffe 1999

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Thielman 2004

1

0

0

0

1

2

1

2

2

Topp 1993

1

0

0

1

2

2

1

2

2

Topp 1996

1

0

0

1

2

2

1

2

2

Topp 2002

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Topp 2005

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Tracy 2004

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Tsutsumi 1997

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Tyni‐Lenne 2001

1

0

0

0

2

1

2

1

2

Vincent 2002

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Westhoff 2000

1

0

2

0

2

2

1

2

2

Wieser 2007

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Wood 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Note: 2/0 indicates that different standards used to assess different outcomes in the same study
NA = not available, no full report published

Figuras y tablas -
Table 2. Quality rating of trials
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 3. Functional or quality of life measures that could not be pooled

Study

Outcome Measure

Treatment Group

Control Group

Baum 2003

Physical performance test at 6 month. Mean = baseline score + change score. SD was not reported.

9.2

8.1

Buchner 1997

mean change in number of independent IADL's

mean 0.1 (SD 0.7)

mean 0.2 (SD 0.7)

Donald 2000

Barthel Index (actual data not in paper)

no significant difference

Fiatarone 1994

ankle activity monitors (counts/day)

mean change 3412 (SD 1700)

mean change ‐1230 (SD 1670)

Fiatarone 1997

overall self‐reported activity level (measure not specified)

significant improvement (p<0.05) in exercise group

NR

Fielding 2002

SF‐36‐PF

No significant differences between high intensity and low intensity groups

Jette 1996

SF‐36 ‐ PF (actual data not reported)

no significant difference between groups (data not reported)

Kongsgaard 2004

three ADLs of a questionnaire developed by the Danish Institute of Clinical Epidemiology

Actual data not reported. The author stated that the self‐reported ADL level was significantly higher in the Ex group than in the control group

Krebs 2007

SF‐36. 7 people (2 in PRT, 5 in Functional training) reported improvement in the SF‐36 items

Maiorana 1997

Physical Activity Questionnaire (no reference) self report

mean 209.8 (SD 142.9) kJ/kg

mean 250.1 (SD 225) kJ/kg

Maurer 1999

SF‐36 PF (no SD/SE reported)

mean 50.3

mean 49.2

Maurer 1999

WOMAC section C (no SD/SE reported)

464.4

606.6

Maurer 1999

Aims Mobility (no SD/SE reported)

1.28

1.21

McMurdo 1995

Barthel Index (medians reported)

median change 0 (range ‐1 to 2)

median change control 0 (range ‐1 to 1)

Mihalko 1996

adapted version of Lawton and Brody's IADL scale (higher = better, not pooled because study was cluster randomised)

mean 105 (SD 12)

mean 68 (SD 25)

Mikesky 2006

SF‐36 physical function at 30 month (the intervention was 1 ‐ year)

n =81, mean = 65.37 (SD = 25.05)

n = 79, mean = 63.88 (SD = 25.48)

Nichols 1993

Blair Seven‐day recall Caloric Expenditure (KCalories)

not significantly altered

not significantly altered

Schilke 1996

AIMS mobility score (actual data not reported)

"no significant differences between or within groups"

Singh 1997

IADL (Lawton Brody Scale)

mean 23.4 (SD 0.4)

mean 23.9 (SD 0.1)

Skelton 1996

Human Activity Profile ‐ (only reported training groups % change and the P‐value of the change)

3.9% change3.9% change

NR

Skelton 1996

Human Activity Profile ‐ Max Activity Score

0% change

NR

Skelton 1995

Human Activity Profile

no difference from baseline

no difference from baseline

Thielman 2004

Rivermead Motor Assessment

Significant improvement was found for people in the control group with low‐level function

Tyni‐Lenne 2001

Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (lower score = better QOL, medians reported)

median 19 (range 0‐61)

median 44 (range 3‐103)
Figuras y tablas -
Table 3. Functional or quality of life measures that could not be pooled
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 4. Falls

Study

Fall Statistic

PRT

Control

Buchner 1997

1) Cox regression analysis, time to first fall, 0.53, 95% CI 0.3‐0.91 for exercise group (including endurance exercise groups)

2) proportion of people who fell in one year

all exercise groups: 42%

60%

3) fall rate (falls/year)

all exercise: 0.81 falls/year

0.49 falls/year

Donald 2000

1) number of falls

7 (n = 32)

4 (n = 27)

2) number of people who fell

6 (n = 32)

2 (n = 27)

* Fiatarone 1994

1) average falls/subject

2.32

2.77

2) covariance adjusted treatment incidence ratio (PRT vs control)

0.95 (95% CI 0.64, 1.41)

Fiatarone 1997

falls

no difference between groups (no data provided)

* Judge 1994

1) Average falls/subject

0.82

1.22

2) Co‐variate adjusted treatment incidence ratio (PRT vs control)

0.61 (95%CI 0.34,1.09)

* Buchner 1997

1) Average falls/subject

0.68

1.6

2) Co‐variate adjusted treatment incidence ratio (PRT vs control)

0.91 (95%CI 0.48,1.74)

Krebs 2007

1 in the PRT group sustained an unrelated fall halfway through the 6‐week intervention, resulting in injury of her dominate shoulder. Exercise was modified for her.

1

0

Latham 2001

total falls

164

149

Latham 2003

1) number of people who fell

60

64

2) fall‐rate, person years

1.02

1.07

Liu‐Ambrose 2005

the frequency of falls (excluded falls occurred in exercise classes)

18 (1 subject fell 7 times)

0

Mangione 2005

Reported the number of participants fell during post‐training examination (n = 1 ‐ group was not reported)

Miszko 2003

Report number of people

5

1

Singh 2005

Numbers per person, no statistical difference between groups

.15 (.37)

0

Note: Data marked with * were obtained from Province 1995

Figuras y tablas -
Table 4. Falls
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Table 5. Adverse events

Study

Any Comment re: AE

AE Occurred (y/n/nr)

Description

Dropout Pathologies

Pain

Medical Care

Deaths

Ades 1996

No

 

 

None reported

 

 

 

Baker 2001

Yes

No

NR

Yes, 2 in treatment group (neck arthritis, prior back injury), 2 in control (illness, psoriatic arthritis)

Treatment group decreased in WOMAC, SF‐36 BP no change

NR

 

Balagopal 2001

No

 

 

NR

 

 

 

Ballor 1996

No

 

 

NR

 

 

 

Barrett 2002

Yes

Yes

2 in PRT group, aggravation of OA

2 in PRT group, aggravation of OA

 

 

 

Baum 2003

Yes

Yes

 

The number of illness was not reported. 13% of repeated measurements after baseline were missing because of death or patient inability to perform the test because of acute illness.

 

 

1 in the PRT group

Bean 2004

Yes

no

No significant adverse events occurred

 

 

 

 

Beneka 2005

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Bermon 1999

No

 

 

No

 

 

 

Boshuizen 2005

Yes

yes

 

9 dropout due to illness of participant or partner

4 reported pain during or after the exercise

 

1 in control

Brandon 2000

No

 

 

 

NR

NR

 

Brandon 2003

Yes

8 members of exercise group had BP raised to over 200 mmHg systolic or 100 mmHg diastolic at some point during the exercises during 24 months; and had to stop exercising that day

 

Participant's disease (diabetics) got worse; specific number was not reported

 

 

 

Brochu 2002

Yes

Yes

2 experienced occasional significant exacerbation of arthritic conditions during the training. 1 experienced significant dizziness in a supine position.

Yes, 3 due to medical problems that are not related to the training

2 individuals experienced occasional significant exacerbation of arthritic conditions during the training

NR

NR

Bruunsgaard 2004

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Buchner 1997

Yes

Yes

6 Injuries in strength training or in strength/endurance training group (not reported separately, n = 50)

Not described

no significant change in BP of SF‐36

For all exercise groups (i.e. including endurance exercise groups): stable outpatient visits in exercise group/ control increased, no difference in hospitalisation rates

 

Casaburi 2004

Yes

No

 

5 (group?)‐non protocol related health problems

NR

 

 

Castaneda 2001

Yes

No

 

No

 

 

 

Castaneda 2004

Yes

Yes

 

The authors did not report the number and group of the dropouts. The statement is "reasons for early termination of the study included loss of greater than 20% of initial body weight, need for dialysis therapy or transplantation, development of a serious condition requiring hospitalization or precluding exercise and signs of malnutrition"

 

 

 

Chandler 1998

No

 

 

9 drop‐outs due to illness, 1 due to increased hip pain, 1 refused further strength testing (not given by group)

NR

NR

 

Charette 1991

No

 

 

1 discomfort after initial strength testing, 3 intercurrent illness not related to training

NR

NR

 

Chin A Paw 2006

Yes

Yes

None withdrew because of adverse effects

9 illness in PRT; 9 illness in functional training group; 10 illness in combined training group; 6 illness in control group

 

 

1 in PRT; 4 in functional training; 1 in combined training; 2 in control group

Collier 1997

No

 

 

No

 

 

 

Damush 1999

No

 

 

6 exercise drop‐outs due to illness

 

 

 

de Vos 2005

Yes

Yes

20 AEs reported in 17 participants. 16 were related to strength testing and 4 were related to power training. 8 were in high intensity group, 7 in medium, 4 in low, and 1 in control. AEs included minor strains, tendonities, and exacerbation of osteoarthritis.

4 (1 in each group) dropout‐joint pain
1 inguinal hernia in medium intensity group. 1 medical reason in low intensity group

Joint pain (see dropout pathologies)

 

 

de Vreede 2007

Yes

Yes

PRT: 1 had muscle strained. 10 reported muscle pain, 5 osteoarthritic joint pain, 3 prosthetic joint pain, and 4 lower back pain

PRT group: 1 hip fracture, 1 pneumonia, & 1 eye operation. Control: 1 wrist fracture

PRT: 10 reported muscle pain, 5 osteoarthritic joint pain, 3 prosthetic joint pain, and 4 lower back pain

 

 

DeBeliso 2005

Yes

no

no injuries occurred during the training

 

 

 

 

DiFrancisco 2007

Yes

No

Occasionally complaints of muscle soreness for 2 days after exercise, but it did not affect participants' daily routine or training

 

 

 

 

Donald 2000

No

 

 

not clear

 

 

 

Earles 2001

Yes (a priori outcome)

Yes

4 reported discomfort, 2 stopped program ‐ 1 due to back pain, 1 due to lumbar disc herniation, possibly due to study intervention

Yes

 

 

 

Ettinger 1997

Yes

Yes

PRT: 2 falls, one weight dropped on foot; Aerobic: 2 falls; Control: 1 sudden death (defined AE as death or injury requiring medical care)

NR

less for PRT group vs control

NR

NR

Fahlman 2002

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Fatouros 2002

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Fatouros 2005

Yes

Yes

 

3 men stopped within the 1st week due to injury

 

 

 

Fiatarone 1997

No

 

 

1 exercise drop‐out due to increased musculoskeletal pain

NR

no difference in health care visits between groups

NR

Fiatarone 1994

Yes

Yes

PRT: 2 reports of joint pain, program was altered No control info No cardiovascular events

2 exercise drop outs, 1 due to musculoskeletal pain, 1 due to pneumonia

not measured

NR

0 PRT and 1 control

Fielding 2002

Yes

yes

see the dropout pathologies

4 (2 in each group) discontinued secondary to exacerbation of preexist OA. 1 in the high velocity group withdrew secondary to recurrence of chronic plantar fasciicis

 

 

 

Flynn 1999

No

 

 

NR

NR

NR

NR

Foley 2003

Yes

Yes

Gym‐based exercise group: 2 had increased pain and 1 had increased blood pressure. 1 ‐Dr. advised to cease program

Gym‐based exercise group: 2 with increased pain, 1 with unrelated surgery, 1 with increased blood pressure, and 1 had joint replacement surgery. Control group: 2 with joint replacement surgery and 1 with illness.

2 reported increased pain the gym‐based exercise group.

 

 

Frontera 2003

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Galvao 2005

Yes

No

1 in 1‐set group withdrew due to illness, 1 due to injury sustained during part‐time work, and 1 due to aggravation of a preexisting hip injury

 

 

 

 

Hagerman 2000

No

 

 

3 PRT and 1 control withdrew because of minor injuries or previous medical problems exacerbated by testing/training

"no complaints of excess or intolerable muscle soreness or fatigue"

NR

NR

Harris 2004

Yes

No

 

 

 

 

 

Haykowsky 2005

Yes

Yes

 

1 in PRT withdrew because of shoulder discomfort and migraines. 1 in the combination training suffered a lower extremity injury not related to the study

 

 

 

Haykowsky 2000

Yes

No (completed without complications)

 

NR

 

 

 

Hennessey 2001

No

 

 

NR

 

 

 

Hepple 1997

No

 

 

No

 

 

 

Hiatt 1994

No

 

 

No

 

 

 

Hortobagyi 2001

No (not identified as such)

Yes

Pain and bruising of shoulder from machine ‐ dropped out

Yes

Yes

NR

NR

Hruda 2003

Yes

Yes?

 

5 (2 in the PRT group and 3 in the control group) dropped out due to health reasons

 

 

 

Hunter 2001

No

 

 

NR

 

 

 

Izquierdo 2004

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Jette 1996

No (not identified as such)

 

 

Yes ‐ 2 drop‐outs because of the exercises, 1 due to back pain, 1 due to shortness of breath during exercise,

 

 

 

Jette 1999

Yes

No

 

Reasons not described

NR, but fatigue significantly worse in exercise group

NR

NR

Jones 1994

Yes

No

 

NR

 

 

 

Jubrias 2001

Yes

No

 

NR

 

 

 

Judge 1994

Yes (a priori outcome of study)

Yes

10/55 people in RT or combined balance and RT developed musculoskeletal complaints, (specific details given), only 1 complaint in balance group, no control report, no serious injuries in any group

NR

NR

 

 

Kalapotharakos 2005

NR

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Kallinen 2002

Yes

Yes

1‐PRT, died of myocardial infarction at 8 weeks; 1‐PRT, unstable angina at 4 weeks; 1 in PRT, began to have occasional angina and dyspnoea at 8 weeks; 1‐endurance, brainstem infarction at week 9, 1‐endurance, abnormal aortic aneurysm happened after the program

See the description

 

 

1 in PRT, died of myocardial infarction

Katznelson 2006

Yes

Yes

 

5 were due to events unrelated to study drug, including bruised ribs, need for knee replacement, angina prior to the baseline visit, nausea during the first week of the study, and excessive i e commitments. Another subject in the placebo arm withdrew because of depression.

 

 

 

Kerr 2001

No

 

 

Yes ‐ 3 in FITNESS group, including wrist and back injury

 

 

 

Kongsgaard 2004

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Krebs 2007

Yes

Yes

1 in the PRT group sustained an unrelated fall halfway through the 6‐week intervention, resulting in injury of her dominate shoulder. Exercise was modified for her.

 

 

 

 

Lamoureux 2003

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Latham 2001

Yes

No

 

No

 

 

 

Latham 2003

Yes (a priori outcome)

Yes

18 musculoskeletal adverse events in PRT group vs 5 in control group

No

 

 

6 in PRT versus 8 in control

Liu‐Ambrose 2005

Yes

Yes

10 in PRT group and 2 in stretching control group had minor musculoskeletal complains but resolved or diminished within 3 weeks

Yes, 1 in PRT and 1 in control drop out due to illness

 

 

 

Macaluso 2003

Yes

Yes

1 back pain and 1 spur on the heel

1 back pain and 1 spur on the heel

1 back pain

 

 

Madden 2006

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Maiorana 1997

Yes (safety an aim of study)

Yes

In ex group: MI (before exercises began),1 vasovagal episode, 1 musculoskeletal pain. Control: 2 people stop testing because of aggravation of psoriatic arthritis(1) and atrial fibrilation (1)

Yes, as reported

NR

NR ‐ ischaemic symptoms/ECG changes during training

 

Malliou 2003

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Mangione 2005

Yes

Yes

several participants reported muscle soreness or fatigue in the PRT group. 1 fell during post‐training examination, 4 in the PRT were hospitalized

in the PRT group, 1‐illness (progressive neuromuscular disorder), 4 were hospitalized.

1 in aerobic training group was unable to perform exercise at recommended intensity level

 

2 (among those who were hospitalized) in the PRT group

Manini 2005

Yes

Yes

11 were excluded from the steadiness experiment because of discomfort from knee OA during the testing protocol. 14 dropout for a variety of medical personal reasons

11 were excluded from the steadiness experiment because of discomfort from knee OA during the testing protocol. 14 others dropped out for a variety of medical and personal reasons.

 

 

 

Maurer 1999

Yes

No

 

Yes, 4 drop‐outs due to increased pain "but neither subjects nor investigators attributed pain to the treatment"

WOMAC pain, 143.8 in PRT vs 167.1 control

NR

NR

McCartney 1995

Yes

No

 

9 exercise drop‐outs due to "illness", 3 controls due to medical problems. Stated "no injuries as a result of training"

 

 

 

McGuigan 2001

No

 

 

NR

 

 

 

McMurdo 1995

Yes

No

 

see hosp admissions

 

3 hospital admissions in PRT, 2 in control, 3 in home mobility ‐ reported not related to exercise

2 in home mobility group, no others ‐ not related to exercise

Mihalko 1996

No

 

 

NR

 

 

 

Mikesky 2006

Yes

Yes

1 discontinued in the PRT group because of increased knee pain

1 discontinued in the PRT group because of increased knee pain

1 discontinued in the PRT group because of increased knee pain

 

 

Miller 2006

No

NR

 

 

 

Discharge destination ‐ on discharge from acute care, 52 participants were discharged to a rehabilitation programme, 12 were transferred to a community hospital, 16 were discharged to higher level care and 20 returned directly to their pre‐injury admission accommodation.

2 in PRT, 1 in attention control

Miszko 2003

Yes

Yes

6 women fell (5 in PRT, 1 in control)

some (the number is not specified) due to personal medical reasons or injuries

 

 

 

Moreland 2001

Yes (a priori outcome)

Yes

yes to pain or stiffness = 14 in PRT vs 8 in control; other adverse: 8 in PRT vs 3 in control

5 withdrew due to medical complications in PRT vs 3 in control

 

 

 

Nelson 1994

Yes

Yes

7/20 in PRT group experienced transient musculoskeletal pain; 3 musculoskeletal injuries (2 fractures and 1 sprain) in the control group

No ‐ MI in PRT group occurred while patient was on vacation

 

 

 

Newnham 1995

No

 

 

No

 

 

3 in each group

Nichols 1993

Yes (safety a priori objective)

Yes

control subject contused sternum during baseline testing, mild to moderate delayed onset muscle soreness

PRT ‐ 1 injury unrelated to program

 

 

 

Ouellette 2004

Yes

Yes, 4 events

1 in the PRT group was withdrawn after coronary artery stent placement unrelated to study participation. 2 subjects did not undergo week‐12 strength testing due to recurrence of an inguinal hernia (PRT group) and ECG abnormalities (control group). A fourth subject experienced anginal symptoms consistent with coronary artery disease but returned to the study after medical clearance.

Please see the description

 

 

 

Parkhouse 2000

No

 

 

NR

 

 

 

Pollock 1991

Yes (a‐priori outcome, well‐defined)

Yes

11/57 subjects sustained an injury during 1RM testing; 2/23 sustained an injury during training. In aerobic group, no injuries during testing but 9/21 had an injury during training

NR by group

 

 

 

Pu 2001

Yes

Yes

1 control patient developed trochanteric bursitis from 1RM testing, 4 people had mild musculoskeletal soreness, no cardiac complications, deaths or hospitalisations occurred

No

 

 

 

Rall 1996

Yes

No

 

 

 

 

 

Reeves 2004

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Rhodes 2000

No

 

 

NR

 

 

 

Sartario 2001

No

 

 

NR

 

 

 

Schilke 1996

No

 

 

No

decreased in OASI, no difference between groups on AIMS

 

 

Schlicht 1999

Yes

No

 

No

 

 

 

Segal 2003

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Selig 2004

Yes

yes

1 illness (noncardiac) and 1 died at home in the exercise group

 

 

 

1 in exercise group

Seynnes 2004

Yes

No

No injuries, medical complications, or study‐related AE

3 dropouts because of medical reasons not related to the study

 

 

 

Simons 2006

Yes

NR

2 dropouts for non‐study related illnesses

 

 

 

 

Simoneau 2006

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Simpson 1992

No

 

 

No

 

 

 

Sims 2006

No

No

 

1 acquired a health problem that prohibited from driving

 

 

 

Singh 1997

Yes (a priori outcome)

No

 

No

weeks of pain reported‐: mean 5.4 (SD=0.7) in PRT, mean 5.6 (SD 0.7) in control

health prof visits mean 2.1 (SD 0.4) for PRT; mean 2.0 (SD 0.5) for control; hospital stays mean 0.24 (SD 0.2) for PRT, mean 0.53 (SD 0.4) for control

 

Singh 2005

Yes

Yes

visits to a health professional, minor illness, pain, injuries requiring training adjustment, hospital days, falls

2 drop out in low intensity group due to pain. I in the control due to hospitalisation

Muscular pain (number of weeks reported per person): High intensity group‐4.1 (2.7); low intensity group‐2.9 (2.6); control group‐3.6 (2.5)
Chest pain (number of weeks reported per person): High intensity group‐ 0.9 (1.9); low‐intensity group‐0.5 (0.9);control group‐.5 (0.8)

Visits to a health professional over the study (numbers per person): high intensity group ‐ 2 (2); low intensity group ‐ 2 (1.8); controls ‐ 5 (1.8)

 

Sipila 1996

No

 

 

3 drop‐outs due to illness "not related to exercise"

 

 

 

Skelton 1995

Yes

No

 

4 exercise and control participants dropped out because of ill‐health "not related to exercise"

 

 

 

Skelton 1996

Yes

yes

patient fainted due to an arythmia during exercise

NR

 

 

 

Sousa 2005

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Suetta 2004

yes

No

 

2 became ill (1 in PRT) for reasons unrelated to the study

 

 

 

Sullivan 2005

Yes

Yes

7 withdrew, developed an exacerbation of an underlying medical problem

7 withdrew, developed an exacerbation of an underlying medical problem

 

 

 

Symons 2005

Yes

Yes

5 knee discomfort; 1 bruising

5 knee discomfort; 1 bruising

 

 

 

Taaffe 1996

No

 

 

5 drop‐outs from exercise groups for medical problems "not related to the exercise program"

 

 

 

Taaffe 1999

No

 

 

NR

 

 

 

Topp 1993

No

 

 

1 exercise drop‐out due to worsening emphysema, 1 due to a stroke

 

 

 

Topp 1996

No

 

 

NR

 

 

 

Topp 2002

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Topp 2005

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Tracy 2004

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Tsutsumi 1997

No

 

 

NR

 

 

 

Tyni‐Lenne 2001

Yes

Maybe

increased oedema in exercise patient

No

 

 

 

Vincent 2002

Yes

Yes

6 participants stopped exercise for 6 weeks due to hip/knee pain

few (the number is not specified) dropped out for surgery/injury not related to the study protocol.

 

 

 

Westhoff 2000

Yes (asked about complaints during exercise)

Yes

increased knee pain in person with OA, 1 person had pain from elastic band

2 drop outs because of medica problems (1 had increased epileptic attacks, 1 was often ill)

 

 

 

Wieser 2007

No

NR

 

 

 

 

 

Wood 2001

No

NR

stated none of the dropouts left the program as a result of adverse responses to treatment ‐ not information about adverse events overall

No

 

 

 
Figuras y tablas -
Table 5. Adverse events
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 1. PRT versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main function measure (higher score = better function) Show forest plot

33

2172

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.14 [0.05, 0.22]

2 Physical function domain of SF‐36/SF‐12 (Higher score = better function) Show forest plot

14

778

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.07 [‐0.08, 0.21]

3 Activities of daily living measure (higher score = better function) Show forest plot

3

330

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.04 [‐0.18, 0.26]

4 Activity level measure (kJ/week) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure Show forest plot

73

3059

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.67, 1.00]

6 Main measure of aerobic function Show forest plot

29

1138

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.31 [0.09, 0.53]

7 VO2 or peak oxygen uptake Show forest plot

19

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 VO2max‐ml/kg.min

18

710

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.50 [0.49, 2.51]

7.2 Peak oxygen uptake‐L/min

2

47

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.04, 0.24]

8 Six‐minute walk test (meters) Show forest plot

11

325

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

52.37 [17.38, 87.37]

9 Balance measures (higher = better balance) Show forest plot

17

996

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐0.00, 0.25]

10 Balance measures (Low = better balance) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10.1 PRT (high intensity) versus control

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10.2 PRT (low intensity) versus control

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Gait speed (m/s) Show forest plot

24

1179

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.08 [0.04, 0.12]

12 Timed walk (seconds) Show forest plot

8

204

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.23 [‐1.07, 0.62]

13 Timed "Up‐and‐Go" (seconds) Show forest plot

12

691

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.69 [‐1.11, ‐0.27]

14 Time to stand from a chair Show forest plot

11

384

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.94 [‐1.49, ‐0.38]

15 Stair climbing (seconds) Show forest plot

8

268

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.44 [‐2.51, ‐0.37]

16 Chair stand within time limit (number of times) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

17 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality) Show forest plot

10

611

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.33 [‐0.89, 3.55]

18 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐36) Show forest plot

10

587

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [‐3.44, 4.12]

19 Pain (lower score = less pain) Show forest plot

6

503

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.30 [‐0.48, ‐0.13]

20 Death Show forest plot

13

1125

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.89 [0.52, 1.54]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. PRT versus control
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 2. High versus low intensity PRT

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main function measure (higher score = better function) Show forest plot

2

62

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.17 [‐0.67, 0.33]

2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure Show forest plot

9

219

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.03, 0.93]

3 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min) Show forest plot

3

101

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.82 [‐0.79, 4.43]

4 Pain (higher score = less pain) Show forest plot

2

62

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.05 [‐0.55, 0.45]

5 Vitality (SF‐36, higher score = more vitality) Show forest plot

2

62

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

6.54 [0.69, 12.39]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. High versus low intensity PRT
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 3. High versus variable intensity PRT

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 3. High versus variable intensity PRT
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 4. PRT frequency

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main LL strength measure Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Three times versus once per week

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 Twice versus once per week

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 4. PRT frequency
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 5. PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Six‐minute walk test (meters) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Timed walk (seconds) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Stair climbing (seconds) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 5. PRT: 3‐sets versus 1‐sets
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 6. PRT versus aerobic training

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main function measure (higher score = better function) Show forest plot

4

125

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.21 [‐0.56, 0.15]

2 Main function measure (lower score = better function) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Main lower limb strength measure Show forest plot

10

487

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.44 [0.08, 0.80]

4 VO2 max (ml/kg.min) Show forest plot

8

423

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐1.13 [‐2.63, 0.38]

5 Six minute walk test (meters) Show forest plot

2

63

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.28 [‐48.24, 39.67]

6 Gait speed (m/s) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7 Pain (lower score = less pain) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 6. PRT versus aerobic training
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 7. PRT versus functional exercise

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main function measure (higher score = better function) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Main lower limb strength measure Show forest plot

3

158

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐6.51 [‐21.05, 8.04]

3 Timed "Up‐and‐Go" (seconds) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality) Show forest plot

2

147

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐2.68, 2.54]

5 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐36) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 7. PRT versus functional exercise
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 8. PRT versus flexibility training

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 SF36 (higher score = better function) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Timed walk (seconds) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Vitality (SF‐36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF‐ 36) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 8. PRT versus flexibility training
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 9. Power training

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Main lower limb strength measure Show forest plot

3

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 High intensity (power treatment) versus control (control)

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.2 High intensity (treatment) versus low intensity (control)

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 9. Power training
Ir a la tabla de la revisión
Comparison 10. PRT versus control supplementary analyses

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Strength (grouped by allocation concealment) Show forest plot

73

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Allocation concealed

6

607

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.12 [‐0.04, 0.28]

1.2 Concealment unknown

67

2452

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.56, 0.73]

2 Strength (grouped by assessor blinding) Show forest plot

73

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 Blinded assessors

19

1523

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.13, 0.34]

2.2 Assessors were not blinded

54

1536

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.77, 0.99]

3 Strength (grouped by intention‐to‐treat) Show forest plot

73

3059

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.46, 0.61]

3.1 Intention‐to‐treat was used

12

1041

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.18 [0.06, 0.30]

3.2 Intention‐to‐treat was not used

61

2018

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.64, 0.83]

4 Strength (grouped by attention control) Show forest plot

73

3059

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.46, 0.61]

4.1 Attention control

24

1408

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.23, 0.44]

4.2 No attention control

49

1651

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.61, 0.82]

5 Strength (grouped by exercise intensity) Show forest plot

72

3052

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.45, 0.60]

5.1 High intensity

54

2026

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.51, 0.70]

5.2 Low‐to‐moderate intensity

19

1026

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.26, 0.51]

6 Strength (grouped by exercise duration) Show forest plot

56

2564

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.45, 0.61]

6.1 Less than 12 weeks

20

828

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.52 [0.37, 0.66]

6.2 Longer than 12 weeks

36

1736

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.43, 0.63]

7 Strength (grouped by health status) Show forest plot

65

2428

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.52, 0.69]

7.1 Healthy participants

46

1502

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.66, 0.88]

7.2 Older adults with a specific health problem

19

926

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.37 [0.24, 0.51]

8 Strength (grouped by functional limitations) Show forest plot

54

2133

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.51, 0.70]

8.1 No functional limitations

41

1349

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.69, 0.93]

8.2 With functional limitations

13

784

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [0.16, 0.44]
Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 10. PRT versus control supplementary analyses
Ir a la tabla de la revisión