Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Progressive resistance strength training for improving physical function in older adults

  1. Chiung-ju Liu1,*,
  2. Nancy K Latham2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group

Published Online: 8 JUL 2009

Assessed as up-to-date: 1 DEC 2007

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002759.pub2

Database Title

Additional Information

How to Cite

Liu CJ, Latham NK. Progressive resistance strength training for improving physical function in older adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD002759. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002759.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Indiana University at Indianapolis, Department of Occupational Therapy, Indianpolis, Indiana, USA

  2. 2

    Boston University, Health and Disabilty Research Institute, School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

*Chiung-ju Liu, Department of Occupational Therapy, Indiana University at Indianapolis, 1140 W Michigan ST CF 303, Indianpolis, Indiana, 46202, USA. liu41@iupui.edu.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (conclusions changed)
  2. Published Online: 8 JUL 2009

SEARCH

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Summary (59K)Standard (1708K)Full (2185K)
[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Forest plot of comparison: 1 PRT versus control, outcome: 1.1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 2 Physical function domain of SF-36/SF-12 (Higher score = better function).
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 3 Activities of daily living measure (higher score = better function).
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 4 Activity level measure (kJ/week).
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 5 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 6 Main measure of aerobic function.
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 7 VO2 or peak oxygen uptake.
[Analysis 1.8]
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 8 Six-minute walk test (meters).
[Analysis 1.9]
Analysis 1.9. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 9 Balance measures (higher = better balance).
[Analysis 1.10]
Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 10 Balance measures (Low = better balance).
[Analysis 1.11]
Analysis 1.11. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 11 Gait speed (m/s).
[Analysis 1.12]
Analysis 1.12. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 12 Timed walk (seconds).
[Analysis 1.13]
Analysis 1.13. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 13 Timed "Up-and-Go" (seconds).
[Analysis 1.14]
Analysis 1.14. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 14 Time to stand from a chair.
[Analysis 1.15]
Analysis 1.15. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 15 Stair climbing (seconds).
[Analysis 1.16]
Analysis 1.16. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 16 Chair stand within time limit (number of times).
[Analysis 1.17]
Analysis 1.17. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 17 Vitality (SF-36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).
[Analysis 1.18]
Analysis 1.18. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 18 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF-36).
[Analysis 1.19]
Analysis 1.19. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 19 Pain (lower score = less pain).
[Analysis 1.20]
Analysis 1.20. Comparison 1 PRT versus control, Outcome 20 Death.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 3 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min).
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 4 Pain (higher score = less pain).
[Analysis 2.5]
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 High versus low intensity PRT, Outcome 5 Vitality (SF-36, higher score = more vitality).
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 High versus variable intensity PRT, Outcome 1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 High versus variable intensity PRT, Outcome 2 VO2 Max (ml/kg/min).
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 PRT frequency, Outcome 1 Main LL strength measure.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 PRT: 3-sets versus 1-sets, Outcome 1 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 PRT: 3-sets versus 1-sets, Outcome 2 Six-minute walk test (meters).
[Analysis 5.3]
Analysis 5.3. Comparison 5 PRT: 3-sets versus 1-sets, Outcome 3 Timed walk (seconds).
[Analysis 5.4]
Analysis 5.4. Comparison 5 PRT: 3-sets versus 1-sets, Outcome 4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds).
[Analysis 5.5]
Analysis 5.5. Comparison 5 PRT: 3-sets versus 1-sets, Outcome 5 Stair climbing (seconds).
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).
[Analysis 6.2]
Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 2 Main function measure (lower score = better function).
[Analysis 6.3]
Analysis 6.3. Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 3 Main lower limb strength measure.
[Analysis 6.4]
Analysis 6.4. Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 4 VO2 max (ml/kg.min).
[Analysis 6.5]
Analysis 6.5. Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 5 Six minute walk test (meters).
[Analysis 6.6]
Analysis 6.6. Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 6 Gait speed (m/s).
[Analysis 6.7]
Analysis 6.7. Comparison 6 PRT versus aerobic training, Outcome 7 Pain (lower score = less pain).
[Analysis 7.1]
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 1 Main function measure (higher score = better function).
[Analysis 7.2]
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 2 Main lower limb strength measure.
[Analysis 7.3]
Analysis 7.3. Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 3 Timed "Up-and-Go" (seconds).
[Analysis 7.4]
Analysis 7.4. Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 4 Vitality (SF-36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).
[Analysis 7.5]
Analysis 7.5. Comparison 7 PRT versus functional exercise, Outcome 5 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF-36).
[Analysis 8.1]
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 1 SF36 (higher score = better function).
[Analysis 8.2]
Analysis 8.2. Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 2 Main lower limb (LL) strength measure.
[Analysis 8.3]
Analysis 8.3. Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 3 Timed walk (seconds).
[Analysis 8.4]
Analysis 8.4. Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 4 Time to stand from a chair (seconds).
[Analysis 8.5]
Analysis 8.5. Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 5 Vitality (SF-36/Vitality plus scale, higher = more vitality).
[Analysis 8.6]
Analysis 8.6. Comparison 8 PRT versus flexibility training, Outcome 6 Pain (higher = less pain, Bodily pain on SF- 36).
[Analysis 9.1]
Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 Power training, Outcome 1 Main lower limb strength measure.
[Analysis 10.1]
Analysis 10.1. Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 1 Strength (grouped by allocation concealment).
[Analysis 10.2]
Analysis 10.2. Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 2 Strength (grouped by assessor blinding).
[Analysis 10.3]
Analysis 10.3. Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 3 Strength (grouped by intention-to-treat).
[Analysis 10.4]
Analysis 10.4. Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 4 Strength (grouped by attention control).
[Analysis 10.5]
Analysis 10.5. Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 5 Strength (grouped by exercise intensity).
[Analysis 10.6]
Analysis 10.6. Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 6 Strength (grouped by exercise duration).
[Analysis 10.7]
Analysis 10.7. Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 7 Strength (grouped by health status).
[Analysis 10.8]
Analysis 10.8. Comparison 10 PRT versus control supplementary analyses, Outcome 8 Strength (grouped by functional limitations).
View Full Article (HTML) Summary (59K)Standard (1708K)Full (2185K)