SynthesisBMC geriatrics2026
Cross-sectional and prospective associations between jump performance and functional outcomes in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly identification of age-related functional decline is essential, yet commonly used mobility assessments often lack sensitivity to detect early decline in high-functioning older adults. Muscle power deteriorates early with aging and has been associated with functional outcomes, suggesting it may be a sensitive marker of functional decline. Jump tests directly assess lower-limb muscle power, but their relationship with functional status or future outcomes has not been synthesized. This review evaluates cross-sectional and prospective associations between jump performance (JP) and functional outcomes in older adults.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, IEEE Xplore, and PEDro was conducted from inception to 18 September 2025. Reference lists were also screened. Eligible studies included older adults (mean age ≥ 65 years), assessed JP using technological devices, and examined cross-sectional or prospective associations with functional outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted when feasible; otherwise, narrative synthesis was performed.
resultsThirty-two studies (7794 participants; 73 ± 5 years) were included, with 16 contributing to meta-analyses. Most studies comprised high-functioning individuals. JP was primarily assessed using countermovement jumps on force platforms (28/32). Functional outcomes included locomotor capacity (LC), physical activity (PA), activities of daily living (ADL), falls, sarcopenia, frailty, and dysmobility syndrome. Methodological quality was predominantly moderate to high (29/32). Meta-analyses were feasible only for cross-sectional associations with LC (544–2519 participants per outcome). Higher jump power showed moderate associations with better performance in Timed Up and Go, gait speed, 5-Chair Stand Test, and Short Physical Performance Battery (|rpooled|= 0.36–0.48). Similar associations were found for jump height (|rpooled|= 0.26–0.40) and jump velocity (|rpooled|= 0.39–0.48). Between-study heterogeneity was predominantly high (I2 > 75% in most analyses; range 38.2–97.5%). Narrative synthesis showed associations of higher JP with greater PA, better ADL, and lower odds of sarcopenia and dysmobility syndrome, but not fall history. Longitudinal evidence was limited to two studies, suggesting prospective associations with falls but not incident (pre-)frailty.
conclusionsJP shows consistent moderate associations with LC in high-functioning older adults, suggesting potential value as a sensitive marker of early mobility decline. Evidence for associations with other functional outcomes and for prospective associations remains limited, highlighting the need for further studies, particularly with longitudinal designs.
trial registrationProspectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020207540).
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.