老年人力量训练与力量训练的有效性比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.7 1区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Mohamed El Hadouchi, Henri Kiers, Ralph de Vries, Cindy Veenhof, Jaap van Dieën
{"title":"老年人力量训练与力量训练的有效性比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Mohamed El Hadouchi,&nbsp;Henri Kiers,&nbsp;Ralph de Vries,&nbsp;Cindy Veenhof,&nbsp;Jaap van Dieën","doi":"10.1186/s11556-022-00297-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research suggests that muscle power is a more critical determinant of physical functioning in older adults than muscle strength. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on the effect of power training compared to strength training in older adults on tests for muscle power, two groups of activity-based tests under controlled conditions: generic tests and tests with an emphasis on movement speed, and finally, physical activity level in daily life.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing effects of power training to strength training in older adults was performed in PubMed, Embase, Ebsco/CINAHL, Ebsco/SPORTDiscus, Wiley/Cochrane Library and Scopus. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool, and quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool. Standardized mean differenences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for outcomes separately using a random effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen trials and 583 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Results indicated a statistically significant benefit of power training on all reported outcomes (muscle power SMD: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.44, p < 0.001; generic activity-based tests SMD: 0.37, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.68; p = 0.02, activity-based tests emphasizing movement speed SMD: 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.62, p < 0.001). None of the included studies used physical activity level in daily life as outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Power training offers more potential for improving muscle power and performance on activity tests in older adults compared to strength training. Future research should assess exercise parameters for power training in older adults. In addition, the validity and reliability of the tests used must be evaluated to establish a standardized test protocol. This protocol should also include measurements of physical activity in daily life.</p>","PeriodicalId":50477,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Aging and Physical Activity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9367108/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of power training compared to strength training in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed El Hadouchi,&nbsp;Henri Kiers,&nbsp;Ralph de Vries,&nbsp;Cindy Veenhof,&nbsp;Jaap van Dieën\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s11556-022-00297-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research suggests that muscle power is a more critical determinant of physical functioning in older adults than muscle strength. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on the effect of power training compared to strength training in older adults on tests for muscle power, two groups of activity-based tests under controlled conditions: generic tests and tests with an emphasis on movement speed, and finally, physical activity level in daily life.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing effects of power training to strength training in older adults was performed in PubMed, Embase, Ebsco/CINAHL, Ebsco/SPORTDiscus, Wiley/Cochrane Library and Scopus. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool, and quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool. Standardized mean differenences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for outcomes separately using a random effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen trials and 583 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Results indicated a statistically significant benefit of power training on all reported outcomes (muscle power SMD: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.44, p < 0.001; generic activity-based tests SMD: 0.37, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.68; p = 0.02, activity-based tests emphasizing movement speed SMD: 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.62, p < 0.001). None of the included studies used physical activity level in daily life as outcome.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Power training offers more potential for improving muscle power and performance on activity tests in older adults compared to strength training. Future research should assess exercise parameters for power training in older adults. In addition, the validity and reliability of the tests used must be evaluated to establish a standardized test protocol. This protocol should also include measurements of physical activity in daily life.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50477,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Review of Aging and Physical Activity\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9367108/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Review of Aging and Physical Activity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s11556-022-00297-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Review of Aging and Physical Activity","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s11556-022-00297-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:研究表明,与肌肉力量相比,肌肉力量是老年人身体功能更关键的决定因素。本研究的目的是系统地回顾有关力量训练与力量训练对老年人肌肉力量测试的影响的文献,两组受控条件下的基于活动的测试:一般测试和强调运动速度的测试,最后是日常生活中的身体活动水平。方法:系统检索PubMed、Embase、Ebsco/CINAHL、Ebsco/SPORTDiscus、Wiley/Cochrane Library和Scopus中比较老年人力量训练和力量训练效果的随机对照试验。使用Cochrane协作工具评估偏倚风险,使用GRADEpro指南开发工具评估证据质量。使用随机效应模型分别计算结果的标准化平均差异(SMD)和95%置信区间(CI)。结果:15项试验和583名参与者被纳入meta分析。结果表明,力量训练在所有报告的结果中都有统计学上显著的益处(肌肉力量SMD: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.54至1.44,p)。结论:与力量训练相比,力量训练在改善老年人肌肉力量和活动测试中的表现方面具有更大的潜力。未来的研究应该评估老年人力量训练的运动参数。此外,必须评估所使用测试的有效性和可靠性,以建立标准化测试方案。该方案还应包括日常生活中体力活动的测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Effectiveness of power training compared to strength training in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Effectiveness of power training compared to strength training in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Effectiveness of power training compared to strength training in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Effectiveness of power training compared to strength training in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Research suggests that muscle power is a more critical determinant of physical functioning in older adults than muscle strength. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on the effect of power training compared to strength training in older adults on tests for muscle power, two groups of activity-based tests under controlled conditions: generic tests and tests with an emphasis on movement speed, and finally, physical activity level in daily life.

Methods: A systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing effects of power training to strength training in older adults was performed in PubMed, Embase, Ebsco/CINAHL, Ebsco/SPORTDiscus, Wiley/Cochrane Library and Scopus. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool, and quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool. Standardized mean differenences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for outcomes separately using a random effects model.

Results: Fifteen trials and 583 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Results indicated a statistically significant benefit of power training on all reported outcomes (muscle power SMD: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.44, p < 0.001; generic activity-based tests SMD: 0.37, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.68; p = 0.02, activity-based tests emphasizing movement speed SMD: 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.62, p < 0.001). None of the included studies used physical activity level in daily life as outcome.

Conclusions: Power training offers more potential for improving muscle power and performance on activity tests in older adults compared to strength training. Future research should assess exercise parameters for power training in older adults. In addition, the validity and reliability of the tests used must be evaluated to establish a standardized test protocol. This protocol should also include measurements of physical activity in daily life.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
1.60%
发文量
29
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: European Review of Aging and Physical Activity (EURAPA) disseminates research on the biomedical and behavioural aspects of physical activity and aging. The main issues addressed by EURAPA are the impact of physical activity or exercise on cognitive, physical, and psycho-social functioning of older people, physical activity patterns in advanced age, and the relationship between physical activity and health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信