scholarly journals The Factors Influencing Meal Satisfaction in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 169-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyung Hee Lee ◽  
JinA Mo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Factors Influencing

scholarly journals Factors influencing the efficacy of nutritional interventions on muscle mass in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aitana Martin-Cantero ◽  
Esmee M Reijnierse ◽  
Benjamin M T Gill ◽  
Andrea B Maier
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Amino Acids ◽  
Muscle Mass ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Protein Supplementation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Nutritional Interventions ◽  
Factors Influencing

Abstract Context Nutritional interventions stimulate muscle protein synthesis in older adults. To optimize muscle mass preservation and gains, several factors, including type, dose, frequency, timing, duration, and adherence have to be considered. Objective This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize these factors influencing the efficacy of nutritional interventions on muscle mass in older adults. Data Sources A systematic search was performed using the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SPORTDiscus from inception date to November 22, 2017, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials, mean or median age ≥65 years, and reporting muscle mass at baseline and postintervention. Exclusion criteria included genetically inherited diseases, anabolic drugs or hormone therapies, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, chronic kidney disease, kidney failure, neuromuscular disorders, and cancer. Data Extraction Extracted data included study characteristics (ie, population, sample size, age, sex), muscle mass measurements (ie, method, measure, unit), effect of the intervention vs the control group, and nutritional intervention factors (ie, type, composition, dose, duration, frequency, timing, and adherence). Data Analysis Standardized mean differences and 95%CIs were calculated from baseline to postintervention. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model and grouped by the type of intervention. Conclusions Twenty-nine studies were included, encompassing 2255 participants (mean age, 78.1 years; SD, 2.22). Amino acids, creatine, β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate, and protein with amino acids supplementation significantly improved muscle mass. No effect was found for protein supplementation alone, protein and other components, and polyunsaturated fatty acids. High interstudy variability was observed regarding the dose, duration, and frequency, coupled with inconsistency in reporting timing and adherence. Overall, several nutritional interventions could be effective to improve muscle mass measures in older adults. Because of the substantial variability of the intervention factors among studies, the optimum profile is yet to be established. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO registration no. CRD42018111306.

Stepping impairment and falls in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of volitional and reactive step tests

2020 ◽  
pp. 101238
Author(s):  
Yoshiro Okubo ◽  
Daniel Schoene ◽  
Maria JD Caetano ◽  
Erika M Pliner ◽  
Yosuke Osuka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Falls In Older Adults

scholarly journals Clinical features and outcomes of COVID-19 in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunny Singhal ◽  
Pramod Kumar ◽  
Sumitabh Singh ◽  
Srishti Saha ◽  
Aparajit Ballav Dey
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Clinical Features ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Infection ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Pooled Prevalence

Abstract Background Few studies have focused on exploring the clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 in older patients. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to have a better understanding of the clinical characteristics of older COVID-19 patients. Methods A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus was performed from December 2019 to May 3rd, 2020. Observational studies including older adults (age ≥ 60 years) with COVID-19 infection and reporting clinical characteristics or outcome were included. Primary outcome was assessing weighted pooled prevalence (WPP) of severity and outcomes. Secondary outcomes were clinical features including comorbidities and need of respiratory support. Result Forty-six studies with 13,624 older patients were included. Severe infection was seen in 51% (95% CI– 36-65%, I2–95%) patients while 22% (95% CI– 16-28%, I2–88%) were critically ill. Overall, 11% (95% CI– 5-21%, I2–98%) patients died. The common comorbidities were hypertension (48, 95% CI– 36-60% I2–92%), diabetes mellitus (22, 95% CI– 13-32%, I2–86%) and cardiovascular disease (19, 95% CI – 11-28%, I2–85%). Common symptoms were fever (83, 95% CI– 66-97%, I2–91%), cough (60, 95% CI– 50-70%, I2–71%) and dyspnoea (42, 95% CI– 19-67%, I2–94%). Overall, 84% (95% CI– 60-100%, I2–81%) required oxygen support and 21% (95% CI– 0-49%, I2–91%) required mechanical ventilation. Majority of studies had medium to high risk of bias and overall quality of evidence was low for all outcomes. Conclusion Approximately half of older patients with COVID-19 have severe infection, one in five are critically ill and one in ten die. More high-quality evidence is needed to study outcomes in this vulnerable patient population and factors affecting these outcomes.

scholarly journals Repetition Priming in Individuals with Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer’s Dementia: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liselotte De Wit ◽  
Vitoria Piai ◽  
Pilar Thangwaritorn ◽  
Brynn Johnson ◽  
Deirdre O’Shea ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Mild Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Repetition Priming ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Healthy Older Adults ◽  
Amnestic Mci ◽  
Standard Mean Difference ◽  
Priming Paradigm

AbstractThe literature on repetition priming in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is inconsistent, with some findings supporting spared priming while others do not. Several factors may explain these inconsistencies, including AD severity (e.g., dementia vs. Mild Cognitive Impairment; MCI) and priming paradigm-related characteristics. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides a quantitative summary of repetition priming in AD. We examined the between-group standard mean difference comparing repetition priming in AD dementia or amnestic MCI (aMCI; presumably due to AD) to controls. Thirty-two studies were selected, including 590 individuals with AD dementia, 267 individuals with amnestic MCI, and 703 controls. Our results indicated that both individuals with aMCI and AD dementia perform worse on repetition priming tasks than cognitively older adults. Paradigm-related moderators suggested that the effect size between studies comparing the combined aMCI or AD dementia group to cognitively healthy older adults was the highest for paradigms that required participants to produce, rather than identify, primes during the test phase. Our results further suggested that priming in AD is impaired for both conceptual and perceptual priming tasks. Lastly, while our results suggested that priming in AD is impaired for priming tasks that require deep processing, we were unable to draw firm conclusions about whether priming is less impaired in aMCI or AD dementia for paradigms that require shallow processing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document