This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

77/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Results The Vivifrail exercise programme provided significant benefits in functional capacity over usual-care. Participants in the usual-care group showed no significant benefit in functional capacity (mean change of -0.17 points [95% CI -0.54, 0.19 points] after 1 month and -0.33 points [95% CI -0.70, 0.04 points] after 3 months), whereas the exercise intervention reversed this trend (0.69 points [95% CI 0.29, 1.09 points] after 1 month and 1.07 points [95% CI 0.63, 1.51 points] after 3 months). Exercise group also obtained significant benefits in cognitive function, muscle function, and depression after 3 months over control group (P < 0.05).

Key findings

Results The Vivifrail exercise programme provided significant benefits in functional capacity over usual-care.
Participants in the usual-care group showed no significant benefit in functional capacity (mean change of -0.17 points [95% CI -0.54, 0.19 points] after 1 month and -0.33 points [95% CI -0.70, 0.04 points] after 3 months), whereas the exercise intervention reversed this trend (0.69 points [95% CI 0.29, 1.09 points] after 1 month and 1.07 points [95% CI 0.63, 1.51 points] after 3 months).
Exercise group also obtained significant benefits in cognitive function, muscle function, and depression after 3 months over control group (P < 0.05).

Study details

Study designrandomized controlled trial
Participants88
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 77/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 47 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 77 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	11 / 12	A randomised controlled trial
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	3 / 5	2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	88 participants
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded	1 / 2	Randomised (as stated in the record)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration	2 / 3	PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35150086)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	47 / 61	Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 47 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 77 out of 100.
Total	77 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Á, C.-H., Sáez de Asteasu, M. L., Antón-Rodrigo, I., Sánchez-Sánchez, J. L., Montero-Odasso, M., Marín-Epelde, I., et al. (2022). Effects of Vivifrail multicomponent intervention on functional capacity: a multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12925

Vancouver

Á C.-H, Sáez de Asteasu ML, Antón-Rodrigo I, Sánchez-Sánchez JL, Montero-Odasso M, Marín-Epelde I, et al. Effects of Vivifrail multicomponent intervention on functional capacity: a multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle. 2022. doi:10.1002/jcsm.12925. PMID: 35150086.

BibTeX

@article{a2022-35150086,
  author  = {Á, Casas-Herrero and Sáez de Asteasu, M. L. and Antón-Rodrigo, I. and Sánchez-Sánchez, J. L. and Montero-Odasso, M. and Marín-Epelde, I. and Ramón-Espinoza, F. and Zambom-Ferraresi, F. and others},
  title   = {{Effects of Vivifrail multicomponent intervention on functional capacity: a multicentre, randomized controlled trial}},
  journal = {Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1002/jcsm.12925},
  pmid    = {35150086},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12925}
}

Related studies in Clinical safety

Also tagged “cognitive-function”

1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-function”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →