RESUMO
Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that power training has the ability to improve muscle power and physical performance in older adults. However, power training definitions are broad and previously-established criteria are vague, making the validity and replicability of power training interventions used in RCTs uncertain. Objective: The aim of this review was to assess whether the power training interventions identified in a previous systematic review (el Hadouchi 2022) are fully described, therapeutically valid, and meet our proposed criteria for power training. Design: Review. Methods: Power training interventions used in older adults, previously-identified in a systematic review, were assessed. The completeness of intervention descriptions was evaluated using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), and therapeutic validity was evaluated using the CONTENT scale in combination with a set of criteria specific for power training. Results: None of the power training interventions were fully described or met the CONTENT scale's criteria for therapeutic validity. Five out of 14 interventions (35.7 %) met all specific power training criteria. Conclusions: Power training interventions used in RCTs comparing power training to strength training are poor to moderately described, may not be therapeutically valid, and may not reflect the construct of power training. This makes it difficult for clinicians or researchers to apply or replicate power training interventions reported in RCTs, and begs the question whether the true effects of power training have been estimated.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Research suggests that muscle power is a more critical determinant of physical functioning in older adults than muscle strength. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on the effect of power training compared to strength training in older adults on tests for muscle power, two groups of activity-based tests under controlled conditions: generic tests and tests with an emphasis on movement speed, and finally, physical activity level in daily life. METHODS: A systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing effects of power training to strength training in older adults was performed in PubMed, Embase, Ebsco/CINAHL, Ebsco/SPORTDiscus, Wiley/Cochrane Library and Scopus. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool, and quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool. Standardized mean differenences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for outcomes separately using a random effects model. RESULTS: Fifteen trials and 583 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Results indicated a statistically significant benefit of power training on all reported outcomes (muscle power SMD: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.44, p < 0.001; generic activity-based tests SMD: 0.37, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.68; p = 0.02, activity-based tests emphasizing movement speed SMD: 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.62, p < 0.001). None of the included studies used physical activity level in daily life as outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Power training offers more potential for improving muscle power and performance on activity tests in older adults compared to strength training. Future research should assess exercise parameters for power training in older adults. In addition, the validity and reliability of the tests used must be evaluated to establish a standardized test protocol. This protocol should also include measurements of physical activity in daily life.