Cochrane · systematic review · CD010494
Mobility training for increasing mobility and functioning in older people with frailty
Treacy, D, Hassett, L, Schurr, K, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · Cochrane Library
MusculoskeletalAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
12
current version
GRADE rated
12
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 16.7%Low 4 · 33.3%Moderate 4 · 33.3%High 2 · 16.7%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Mobility training compared to control
Population: older people living in the community with frailty
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mobility (SPPB from 0 to 12; a higher score indicates better mobility.) Mobility training vs control | no estimate extracted | 12 studies · 1151 participants | High |
Function (Barthel Index from 0 to 100; a higher score indicates better functioning.) Mobility training vs control | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 916 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Adverse events Mobility training vs control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 225 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number of people who experienced 1 or more admissions to a nursing care facility Mobility training vs control | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 241 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number of fallers Mobility training vs control | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 425 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Death Mobility training vs control | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 747 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Mobility training compared to control: 6 months post‐intervention
Population: older people living in the community with frailty
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mobility (A higher score indicates better mobility.) Mobility training vs control: 6 months post‐intervention | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 451 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Function (A higher score indicates better functioning.) Mobility training vs control: 6 months post‐intervention | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 278 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Mobility training compared to control: subgroups with or without cognitive impairments
Population: older people living in the community with frailty
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mobility (A higher score indicates better mobility.) Mobility training vs control: subgroups with or without cognitive impairments | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 171 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Function (A higher score indicates better functioning.) Mobility training vs control: subgroups with or without cognitive impairments | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 80 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Mobility (A higher score indicates better mobility.) Mobility training vs control: subgroups with or without cognitive impairments | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 967 participants | High |
Function (A higher score indicates better functioning.) Mobility training vs control: subgroups with or without cognitive impairments | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 839 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |