Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33835166›Full record

ArticleThe journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences2021

In-Depth Analyses of the Effects of a Diet and Resistance Exercise Intervention in Older Adults: Who Benefits Most From ProMuscle in Practice?

Berber G Dorhout, Esmée L Doets, Ellen J I van Dongen, Lisette C P G M de Groot, Annemien Haveman-Nies

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Berber G DorhoutDivision of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands.
Esmée L DoetsFood, Health and Consumer Research, Wageningen Food and Biobased Research, The Netherlands.
Ellen J I van DongenFood, Health and Consumer Research, Wageningen Food and Biobased Research, The Netherlands.
Lisette C P G M de GrootDivision of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands.
Annemien Haveman-NiesChair Group Consumption and Healthy Lifestyles, Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands.
Wageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ProMuscle in Practice intervention, comprising resistance exercise and an increased protein intake, was effective in improving muscle strength, lean body mass, and physical functioning in older adults aged 65 years and older (N = 168). However, a heterogeneous response to such interventions is common. Therefore, we explored the differences in responsiveness to the intervention in subgroups based on demographic characteristics and mobility-impairing disorders.

methodMultiple regression analyses were performed to study mean changes between baseline and 12 weeks on the Short Physical Performance Battery, chair rise test, lean body mass, knee extension strength, leg press strength, and leg extension strength. The interaction term Treatment × Subgroup was included to study differences in effects between subgroups. Subgroups comprised age (≤75 vs >75 years), sex (men vs women), presence of frailty, presence of sarcopenia, and presence of osteoarthritis.

resultsA significant interaction effect including age was found on lean body mass (β = -0.8; 95% CI: -1.5, -0.2), favoring participants aged 75 years and younger. A significant interaction effect including sex was found on leg press strength (β = 15.5; 95% CI: 0.6, 30.3), favoring women. Participants with or without frailty, sarcopenia, or osteoarthritis responded equally to the intervention in terms of absolute effects.

conclusionsParticipants aged 75 years and younger and women benefited to a great extent from the intervention, as they improved significantly on nearly every outcome. Effects in participants with and without a mobility-impairing disorder were comparable, indicating that the intervention is suitable for both groups.

Indexed as

DietMuscle StrengthPhysical Functional PerformanceResistance TrainingAgedBody CompositionFemaleFrailtyGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleMuscle, SkeletalOsteoarthritisSarcopeniaLifestyle interventionMuscle massMuscle strengthPhysical functioningResponsiveness

Identifiers

PMID33835166
PMCPMC8599037
OpenAlexW3142445159

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.