2023
DOI: 10.3390/life13051224
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of High-Intensity Functional Training (HIFT) on the Functional Capacity, Frailty, and Physical Condition of Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Blind Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Abstract: Physical exercise has been established as an intervention in the integral approach for the physical, functional, and social health of older adults. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of a high-intensity functional training (HIFT) program on the physical condition and functional capacity of an elderly Colombian population with mild cognitive impairment. This research corresponds to a blind randomized controlled clinical trial. A total of 169 men and women aged over 65 years were evaluated … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We screened all of these records and excluded 56 based on titles and abstracts, leaving 475 articles for full-text eligibility assessment. Upon detailed review, we excluded 388 articles for not meeting our specific inclusion criteria, resulting in 19 studies being included in the final review [47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]. Each of these 19 studies was accounted for in our report, ensuring a comprehensive and transparent documentation of our systematic review process, as shown in Figure 1.…”
Section: Eligibility Criteria For Screeningmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We screened all of these records and excluded 56 based on titles and abstracts, leaving 475 articles for full-text eligibility assessment. Upon detailed review, we excluded 388 articles for not meeting our specific inclusion criteria, resulting in 19 studies being included in the final review [47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]. Each of these 19 studies was accounted for in our report, ensuring a comprehensive and transparent documentation of our systematic review process, as shown in Figure 1.…”
Section: Eligibility Criteria For Screeningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The risk of bias assessment shown in Figure 2 reflects a thorough evaluation of 19 studies included in the systematic review [47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] In conclusion, the aggregate evidence from the risk of bias assessment points to a predominantly reliable and methodologically sound collection of studies, with isolated issues that warrant careful consideration. The overall low risk of bias across the majority of studies provides a solid foundation for drawing reliable conclusions in the systematic review, while the few instances of higher risk or some concerns emphasize the need for a cautious and balanced interpretation of some individual study outcomes.…”
Section: Risk Of Biasmentioning
confidence: 99%