Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences Large Type Edition
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]
Author:
Keyword(s):
Year:  Vol:  Page: 


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Latham, N. K.
Right arrow Articles by Anderson, C. S.
Right arrow Articles citing this Article
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Latham, N. K.
Right arrow Articles by Anderson, C. S.
The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 59:M48-M61 (2004)
© 2004 The Gerontological Society of America


REVIEW ARTICLE

Systematic Review of Progressive Resistance Strength Training in Older Adults

Nancy K. Latham1,2, Derrick A. Bennett1, Caroline M. Stretton3 and Craig S. Anderson1

1 Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
2 Center for Rehabilitation Effectiveness, Sargent College, Boston University, Massachusetts.
3 School of Physiotherapy, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand.

Background. The aim of this systematic review was to quantify the effectiveness of progressive resistance strength training (PRT) to reduce physical disability in older people.

Methods. Randomized controlled trials were identified from searches of relevant databases and study reference lists and contacts with researchers. Two reviewers independently screened the trials for eligibility, rated their quality, and extracted data. Only randomized controlled trials utilizing PRT as the primary intervention in participants, whose group mean age was 60 years or older, were included. Data were pooled using fixed or random effect models to produce weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated when different units of measurement were used for the outcome of interest.

Results. 62 trials (n = 3674) compared PRT with a control group. 14 trials had data available to allow pooling of disability outcomes. Most trials were of poor quality. PRT showed a strong positive effect on strength, although there was significant heterogeneity (41 trials [n = 1955], SMD 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52, 0.84). A modest effect was found on some measures of functional limitations such as gait speed (14 trials [n = 798], WMD 0.07 meters per second; 95% CI 0.04, 0.09). No evidence of an effect was found for physical disability (10 trials [n = 722], SMD 0.01; 95% CI -0.14, 0.16). Adverse events were poorly investigated, but occurred in most studies where they were defined and prospectively monitored.

Conclusions. PRT results in improvements to muscle strength and some aspects of functional limitation, such as gait speed, in older adults. However, based on current data, the effect of PRT on physical disability remains unclear. Further, due to the poor reporting of adverse events in trials, it is difficult to evaluate the risks associated with PRT.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All GSA journals The Gerontologist
Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
Copyright © 2004 by The Gerontological Society of America.