This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (8 JUL 2009)

Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Progressive resistance strength training for physical disability in older people

  1. Nancy K Latham1,*,
  2. Craig S Anderson2,
  3. Derrick A Bennett3,
  4. Caroline Stretton4

Editorial Group: Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group

Published Online: 15 APR 2009

Assessed as up-to-date: 2 DEC 2002

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002759

Database Title

Additional Information

How to Cite

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. Art. No.: CD002759. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002759.

Author Information

  1. 1

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

  2. 2

    The George Institute for International Health, Department of Neurological and Mental Health, Sydney, Australia

  3. 3

    Oxford University, Clinical Trials Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Oxford, UK

  4. 4

    Auckland University of Technology, School of Physiotherapy, Auckland, New Zealand

*Nancy K Latham, Health and Disabilty Research Institute, School of Public Health, Boston University, 580 Harrison Avenue, 4th Floor, Boston, MA, 02118-2639, USA. nlatham@bu.edu.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Unchanged
  2. Published Online: 15 APR 2009

SEARCH

ARTICLE TOOLS

This is not the most recent version of the article.View current version (08 Jul 2009)

View Full Article (HTML) Summary (60K)Standard (1020K)Full (1211K)
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Strength, Outcome 1 Main Lower Limb Strength (LL) Measure - PRT versus control.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Strength, Outcome 2 Main LL strength measure - high versus low intensity.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Strength, Outcome 3 Main LL strength measure - high intensity versus variable intensity.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Strength, Outcome 4 Main LL strength measure - once per week versus 3x per week.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Strength, Outcome 5 Main LL strength measure - PRT versus aerobic.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Aerobic capacity, Outcome 1 Main measure of aerobic function - PRT versus control.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Aerobic capacity, Outcome 2 VO2 max (ml/kg.min) - PRT versus control.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Aerobic capacity, Outcome 3 Six-Minute Walk Test (metres) - PRT versus Control.
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Aerobic capacity, Outcome 4 High versus low intensity PRT - VO2 Max (ml/kg/min).
[Analysis 2.5]
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Aerobic capacity, Outcome 5 High intensity PRT versus variable intensity PRT - VO2 Max.
[Analysis 2.6]
Analysis 2.6. Comparison 2 Aerobic capacity, Outcome 6 Aerobic Training versus PRT - Six minute walk test.
[Analysis 2.7]
Analysis 2.7. Comparison 2 Aerobic capacity, Outcome 7 Aerobic Training versus PRT - VO2 max (ml/kg.min).
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Balance, Outcome 1 Balance measures (higher = better balance) - PRT versus control.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Balance, Outcome 2 Balance measures - PRT versus balance training.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Gait speed, Outcome 1 Gait speed (m/s) - PRT versus control.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Gait speed, Outcome 2 Timed walk (seconds) - PRT versus control.
[Analysis 4.3]
Analysis 4.3. Comparison 4 Gait speed, Outcome 3 Timed "Up-and-Go" (seconds) - PRT versus control.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Chair Stand, Outcome 1 Time to stand from a chair - PRT versus control.
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 Disability, Outcome 1 Main Disability Measure (higher score =better function) - PRT versus control.
[Analysis 6.2]
Analysis 6.2. Comparison 6 Disability, Outcome 2 Main Disability Measure (lower score=better function) - PRT versus Control.
[Analysis 6.3]
Analysis 6.3. Comparison 6 Disability, Outcome 3 PF of SF-36 (Higher score=better function) - PRT versus Control.
[Analysis 6.4]
Analysis 6.4. Comparison 6 Disability, Outcome 4 ADL Measure (higher score = better function) - PRT vs control.
[Analysis 6.5]
Analysis 6.5. Comparison 6 Disability, Outcome 5 Activity level measure, kJ/week - PRT versus control.
[Analysis 6.6]
Analysis 6.6. Comparison 6 Disability, Outcome 6 High versus Low Intensity Training - main disability measure (higher score=better function).
[Analysis 6.7]
Analysis 6.7. Comparison 6 Disability, Outcome 7 Aerobic Training versus PRT - main disability measure (higher score = better function).
[Analysis 6.8]
Analysis 6.8. Comparison 6 Disability, Outcome 8 Aerobic training versus PRT - main disability measure (lower score =better function).
[Analysis 7.1]
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Pain, Outcome 1 Pain (higher =less pain, BP on SF-36) - PRT versus Control.
[Analysis 7.2]
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Pain, Outcome 2 Pain (lower score=less pain) - PRT versus control.
[Analysis 7.3]
Analysis 7.3. Comparison 7 Pain, Outcome 3 PRT versus Aerobic training - Pain (lower score=less pain).
[Analysis 7.4]
Analysis 7.4. Comparison 7 Pain, Outcome 4 High versus low intensity PRT- Pain (higher score=less pain).
[Analysis 8.1]
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Vitality, Outcome 1 Vitality (SF-36, higher = more vitality) - PRT versus Control.
[Analysis 8.2]
Analysis 8.2. Comparison 8 Vitality, Outcome 2 High versus low intensity PRT - Vitality (SF-36, higher score=more vitality).
[Analysis 9.1]
Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 Death, Outcome 1 Death - PRT versus control.
View Full Article (HTML) Summary (60K)Standard (1020K)Full (1211K)