Department of Family, Nutrition, and Exercise Sciences, Queens College, The City University of New York, Flushing, New York.
School of Sport, Health, and Social Sciences, Solent University, Southampton, United Kingdom.
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 May 2;5(5):e2211623. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.11623.
Strength training exercise is recommended for improving physical function in older adults. However, whether strength training (lifting and lowering weights under control) and power training (PT) (lifting weights fast and lowering under control) are associated with improved physical function in older adults is not clear.
To evaluate whether PT vs traditional strength training is associated with physical function improvement in older adults.
Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, PsycInfo, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus were conducted from database inception to October 20, 2021.
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared strength training with instructions to move the weight as fast as possible in the lifting phase with traditional strength training in healthy, community-living older adults (age ≥60 years).
Two authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Summary effect size measures were calculated using a multilevel random-effects model with cluster robust variance estimation and are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs). Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline.
Primary outcomes included physical function and self-reported physical function. Secondary outcomes included power, strength, muscle mass, walk speed, balance, and adverse effects.
A total of 20 RCTs enrolling 566 community-living older adults (mean [SD] age, 70.1 [4.8] years; 368 [65%] women) were included. For the primary outcomes, PT was associated with an improvement in physical function with low-certainty evidence in 13 RCTs (n = 383) (SMD, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.05-0.54) and self-reported function with low-certainty evidence in 3 RCTs (n = 85) (SMD, 0.38; 95% CI, -0.62 to 1.37). The evidence was downgraded by 2 levels for high risk of bias and imprecision for physical function and very serious imprecision for self-reported physical function.
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, PT was associated with a modest improvement in physical function compared with traditional strength training in healthy, community-living older adults. However, high-quality, larger RCTs are required to draw more definitive conclusions.
力量训练运动被推荐用于改善老年人的身体功能。然而,力量训练(在控制下举重和放下重量)和功率训练(PT)(快速举重并在控制下放下)是否与老年人身体功能的改善有关尚不清楚。
评估 PT 与传统力量训练相比是否与老年人身体功能的改善有关。
从数据库建立到 2021 年 10 月 20 日,对 MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane 中央、CINAHL、PsycInfo、PEDro 和 SPORTDiscus 进行了系统搜索。
随机临床试验(RCTs),将力量训练与在提升阶段尽可能快速移动重量的指示进行比较,与传统力量训练在健康的社区居住老年人(年龄≥60 岁)中进行比较。
两位作者独立选择试验,提取数据,使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具 2 评估偏倚风险,并使用 Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation 方法评估证据的确定性。使用多层次随机效应模型和聚类稳健方差估计计算汇总效应大小度量,并报告为标准化均数差(SMD)。报告遵循系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目。
主要结果包括身体功能和自我报告的身体功能。次要结果包括功率、力量、肌肉质量、步行速度、平衡和不良反应。
共纳入 20 项 RCT,涉及 566 名社区居住的老年人(平均[SD]年龄,70.1[4.8]岁;368[65%]名女性)。对于主要结局,在 13 项 RCT(n=383)中,PT 与身体功能的改善相关,证据质量为低(SMD,0.30;95%置信区间,0.05-0.54),在 3 项 RCT(n=85)中,PT 与自我报告的功能改善相关,证据质量为低(SMD,0.38;95%置信区间,-0.62 至 1.37)。由于高偏倚风险和身体功能的不精确性以及自我报告的身体功能的非常严重的不精确性,证据被降级了 2 个级别。
在这项系统评价和荟萃分析中,与传统力量训练相比,PT 与健康的社区居住老年人身体功能的适度改善相关。然而,需要高质量、更大规模的 RCT 来得出更明确的结论。