SynthesisSystematic reviews2026
Attention to principles of training and exercise prescription in systematic reviews of exercise for functional performance in older adults: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExercise interventions are essential for maintaining functional independence in older adults, with systematic reviews guiding evidence-based practice. However, implementing these interventions requires detailed information about exercise parameters, progression strategies, and contextual adaptations that extend beyond basic intervention descriptions. The adequacy of systematic reviews in providing this practice-essential information remains unevaluated. We examined systematic reviews' attention to exercise training principles, FITT-VP components, and implementation context in interventions for functional performance in community-dwelling older adults.
methodsSix databases were searched for systematic reviews of exercise interventions published 2014-2024. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data on FITT-VP components (Frequency, Intensity, Time, Type, Volume, Progression), fundamental exercise principles (specificity, overload, individualisation, reversibility, variation), and implementation context (setting adaptability, equipment, supervision, safety, adherence). Quality was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal tool.
resultsTwenty-five systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. While reporting of frequency (23/25, 92%) and type (19/25, 76%) were well-reported, critical parameters showed deficiencies in terms of complete reporting: intensity (6/25, 24%), time (11/25, 44%), volume (9/25, 36%), and progression (0/25 0%). Exercise principles received minimal attention in terms of specificity (2/25, 8% complete), individualisation (1/25, 4%), and overload (1/25, 4%). Diminishing returns were not discussed. Implementation context showed poorest reporting with equipment requirements (11/25, 44% complete), supervision protocols (2/25, 8%), and safety considerations (0/25, 0% complete). No review (25/25) considered the alignment of component-based interventions with integrated functional assessments. Temporal analysis revealed no improvement between pre-2020 reviews (n = 6, mean 4.2 complete items, 23%) and post-2020 reviews (n = 19, mean 3.4 complete items, 19%). Methodological quality (JBI scores) inversely correlated with reporting completeness (ρ = - 0.379, p = 0.062). Sensitivity analysis excluding four partially eligible reviews confirmed all findings were robust (largest change 5.9%).
conclusionsSystematic reviews of exercise interventions for older adults demonstrate incomplete reporting of information necessary for implementation. Substantial gaps exist in progression protocols, training principles, and implementation context. Limited discussion of relationships between intervention approaches and functional assessments may contribute to challenges in translating research to practice. Enhanced reporting standards would benefit the field. SYSTEM REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42024592070.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.