IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0337017.html

Does resistance training make a difference to the quality of life or heart health for older adults compared to aerobic exercise? A systematic review protocol from The People’s Review

Author

Listed:
  • Éle Quinn
  • Laura Bosner
  • Patricia Logullo
  • Kevin Murray
  • KM Saif-Ur-Rahman
  • Charlene Young
  • Derek Stewart
  • Maureen Smith
  • Jeremy Holt
  • Shaun Treweek
  • Chris Noone
  • David Moher
  • Sinéad M Hynes
  • The People

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews bring together all the evidence on a health topic in an organised and careful way. The People’s Review aims to help the public understand what systematic reviews are and why they matter by designing and conducting their own systematic review. The question chosen for The People’s Review is: Does resistance training make a difference to quality of life and/or heart health for older adults compared to aerobic exercise? This paper outlines how we will carry out this review. Methods: This is a systematic review involving the public throughout. This review will search for, include and summarise: randomised controlled trials, with older adults (50 + years), that compare resistance training (such as lifting weights) with aerobic exercise (such as walking or running), and measure quality of life or heart health. First, the technical team will search research databases to find possible studies. The public will look at summaries of these to find studies that might be relevant. Then, two members of the technical team will read the full studies and decide which ones to include. Next, the public will help collect some of the key information from the included studies. The technical team will record the rest. The public and the technical team will work together to check for biases (or flaws in how the studies were done) in the studies. Finally, if possible, the team will combine the study results using a method called meta-analysis (a way of pooling numbers together). If we can’t combine the numbers, we will write a summary of what the studies found Discussion: This review will summarise all the available evidence that addresses the review question. This review could support the public to make decisions about what type of exercise to engage in as they age, and influence exercise guidelines, clinical practice and future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Éle Quinn & Laura Bosner & Patricia Logullo & Kevin Murray & KM Saif-Ur-Rahman & Charlene Young & Derek Stewart & Maureen Smith & Jeremy Holt & Shaun Treweek & Chris Noone & David Moher & Sinéad M Hyn, 2026. "Does resistance training make a difference to the quality of life or heart health for older adults compared to aerobic exercise? A systematic review protocol from The People’s Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(6), pages 1-23, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0337017
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0337017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0337017
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0337017&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0337017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0337017. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.