Balachandran · JAMA network open 2022 · systematic review and meta-analysis · n=20 studies

Comparison of Power Training vs Traditional Strength Training on Physical Function in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Cited 69 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PubMed 35544136 · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.11623 · record verified 2026-08-30

What was done

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (searched through October 20, 2021) comparing power training (moving weights as fast as possible in the lifting phase) with traditional strength training in healthy, community-living older adults (age ≥60 years). Effect sizes were pooled using a multilevel random-effects model with cluster robust variance estimation (reported as standardized mean differences, SMDs). Bias was evaluated with Cochrane RoB 2 and certainty with GRADE.

What was found

Twenty RCTs (566 participants; mean age 70.1 years; 65% women) met inclusion criteria: - Physical function (13 RCTs, n = 383): Power training was associated with improvement compared to traditional strength training (SMD, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.54; low-certainty evidence). - Self-reported physical function (3 RCTs, n = 85): SMD 0.38 (95% CI, -0.62 to 1.37; low-certainty evidence). - Secondary outcomes (power, strength, muscle mass, walk speed, balance, adverse effects): quantitative values were not reported in the abstract.

Why it matters

Moving resistance loads with maximal intent during the concentric phase may offer functional advantages over traditional slow/controlled lifting speeds in older populations.

Limits

The certainty of evidence was rated low, downgraded for high risk of bias across included trials and substantial imprecision from small trial sample sizes. Findings are limited to healthy community-dwelling older adults and cannot be directly generalized to clinical or frail cohorts.

Cited by