Background: Handgrip strength measurements are feasible with older adults and a reliable indicator for vitality, physical function, and several risk factors in the ageing process. Interventions with exercise training induce a variety of strength, balance, and endurance improvements. The pooled transfer effects of exercise training on handgrip strength has not been investigated to date. Thus, the objective of this meta-analytical review is to examine the effects of different exercise training on handgrip strength in healthy community-dwelling older adults of 60 years or older. Methods: The literature search was conducted in three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus) using the following search terms with Boolean conjunctions: (hand grip* OR grip strength OR grip power) AND (sport* OR train* OR exercis* OR strength OR intervention OR endurance OR resistance OR balance OR aerob*) AND (old* OR elder* OR senior*). Non-randomized and randomized controlled trials with an exercise training and handgrip strength as the outcome parameter were screened. Study quality was independently assessed by two researchers using the PEDro scale. Comparison of handgrip strength between the intervention and control groups was conducted by using the hedges g (including adjustment for small sample sizes), calculating standardized mean differences (SMDs). A random effects inverse-variance model was applied for statistical analysis. Results: Twenty-four trials (mean PEDro score 5.8 ± 0.9) with a total of 3,018 participants (mean age 73.3 ± 6.0 years) were included. Small but significant effects (p < 0.001) on handgrip strength were observed (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.13–0.44). Study heterogeneity (I² 56%) and the funnel shape for publication bias analyses were acceptable. Conclusions: Meaningful but small transfer effects of a multitude of different training approaches on handgrip strength occurred in healthy community-dwelling older adults. Handgrip strength cannot clearly be recommended to assess general functional performance for all kinds of exercise programs, whereas task-specific training and multimodal training modes seem to provide an appropriate stimulus to also improve handgrip strength.

Micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) have reduced drastically in size, cost, and power consumption, while improving accuracy. The combination of different sensor technologies is considered a promising step in the monitoring of athletes. Those “wearables” enable the capturing of relevant physiological and tactical information in individual and team sports and thus replacing subjective, time-consuming and qualitative methods with objective, quantitative ones. Prior studies mainly comprised sports categories such as: targeting sports, batting and fielding games as well as net and wall games, focusing on the detection of individual, non-locomotive movements. The increasing capabilities of wearables allow for more complex and integrative analysis expanding research into the last category: invasion sports. Such holistic approaches allow the derivation of metrics, estimation of physical conditions and the analysis of team strategic behavior, accompanied by integrative knowledge gains in technical, tactical, physical, and mental aspects of a sport. However, prior and current researchers find the precise measurement of the actual movement within highly dynamic and non-linear movement difficult. Thus, the present article showcases an overview of the environments in which the wearables are employed. It elaborates their use in individual as well as team-related performance analyses with a special focus on reliability and validity, challenges, and future directions.

Background: Exercise training is a beneficial treatment strategy for depression. Previous meta-analytical reviews mainly examined the effect of aerobic exercise on depressive symptoms neglecting comparisons with neuromuscular training and meta-regression considering relevant exercise training prescriptors such as exercise duration, intensity, number of exercise sessions (volume) and frequency. Methods: A structured literature search was conducted in biomedical and psychological databases and study selection was conducted following the PICOS approach. (Randomized) controlled trials that compared supervised neuromuscular or endurance exercise interventions with an inactive control group (CON) in clinically depressed in- or out-patients over 18 years were included. Eligibility and study quality were evaluated by two independent researchers. Standardized mean differences (SMD) for the reduction of depressive symptoms, measured with different evaluation scales (e.g., BDI, HAM-D, PHQ-9, HRSD, MADRS, GDS) were calculated with the adjusted Hedges'g equation as main outcome for the comparison of endurance and neuromuscular exercise interventions vs. CON. Statistical analyses were conducted using a random effects inverse-variance model. Multivariate meta-regression analysis was performed in order to examine the modulating effects of exercise training prescriptors. Results: Twenty seven trials with 1,452 clinically depressed adults were included. 20 out of 27 included trials reached a PEDro score of at least 6, representing high-quality. Irrespective of the exercise mode and study quality, large effects in favor of exercise compared to the control condition were found. Compared to CON, sensitivity analyses revealed a moderate to large effect in favor of endurance exercise [SMD: −0.79 (90% CI: −1.10, −0.48); p < 0.00001, I² = 84%] and a large effect size in favor of neuromuscular exercise [SMD: −1.14 (90 CI: −1.50, −0.78); p < 0.00001, I² = 80%]. These effects decreased to moderate for endurance and remained large for neuromuscular trials when considering studies of high quality, indicating a significant difference (p = 0.04). Multivariate meta- regression revealed that exercise duration in endurance trials and exercise intensity in neuromuscular trials had a significantly moderating effect. Conclusions: Strong neuromuscular exercise interventions can be slightly more effective than endurance exercise interventions. Interestingly, exercise duration and exercise intensity moderated the effect size meaningfully. This result might be used on exercise in depression to increase efficacy.

Background: The aim of the present systematic meta-analytical review was to quantify the effects of different mind–body interventions (MBI) involving meditative movements on relevant psychological health outcomes (i.e., quality of life (QoL), depressive symptoms, fear of falling (FoF) and sleep quality) in older adults without mental disorders. Methods: A structured literature search was conducted in five databases (Ovid, PsycINFO, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science). Inclusion criteria were: (i) the study was a (cluster) randomized controlled trial, (ii) the subjects were aged ≥59 years without mental illnesses, (iii) an intervention arm performing MBI compared to a non-exercise control group (e.g., wait-list or usual care), (iv) psychological health outcomes related to QoL, depressive symptoms, FoF or sleep quality were assessed and (v) a PEDro score of ≥5. The interventions of the included studies were sub-grouped into Tai Chi/Qigong (TCQ) and Yoga/Pilates (YP). Statistical analyses were conducted using a random-effects inverse-variance model. Results: Thirty-seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (comprising 3224 participants) were included. Small to moderate-but-significant overall effect sizes favoring experimental groups (Hedges’ g: 0.25 to 0.71) compared to non-exercise control groups were observed in all outcomes (all p values ≤ 0.007), apart from one subdomain of quality of life (i.e., social functioning, p = 0.15). Interestingly, a significant larger effect on QoL and depressive symptoms with increasing training frequency was found for TCQ (p = 0.03; p = 0.004). Conclusions: MBI involving meditative movements may serve as a promising opportunity to improve psychological health domains such as QoL, depressive symptoms, FoF and sleep quality in older adults. Hence, these forms of exercise may represent potential preventive measures regarding the increase of late-life mental disorders, which need to be further confirmed by future research.

Background and Objective: Contextual effects (e.g. patient expectations) may play a role in treatment effectiveness. This study aimed to estimate the magnitude of contextual effects for conservative, non‐pharmacological interventions for musculoskeletal pain conditions. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared placebo conservative non‐pharmacological interventions to no treatment for musculoskeletal pain. The outcomes assessed included pain intensity, physical functioning, health‐related quality of life, global rating of change, depression, anxiety and sleep at immediate, short‐, medium‐ and/or long‐term follow‐up.Databases and Data Treatment: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, CENTRAL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to September 2021. Trial registry searches, backward and forward citation tracking and searches for prior systematic reviews were completed. The Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool was implemented.Results: The study included 64 RCTs (N = 4314) out of 8898 records. For pain intensity, a mean difference of (MD: −5.32, 95% confidence interval (CI): −7.20, −3.44, N = 57 studies with 74 outcomes, GRADE: very low) was estimated for placebo interventions. A small effect in favour of the placebo interventions for physical function was estimated (SMD: −0.22, 95% CI: −0.35, −0.09; N = 37 with 48 outcomes, GRADE: very low). Similar results were found for a broad range of patient‐reported outcomes. Meta‐regression analyses did not explain heterogeneity among analyses.Conclusion: The study found that the contextual effect of non‐pharmacological conservative interventions for musculoskeletal conditions is likely to be small. However, given the known effect sizes of recommended evidence‐based treatments for musculoskeletal conditions, it may still contribute an important component.Significance: Contextual effects of non‐pharmacological conservative interventions for musculoskeletal conditions are likely to be small for a broad range of patient‐reported outcomes (pain intensity, physical function, quality of life, global rating of change and depression). Contextual effects are unlikely, in isolation, to offer much clinical care. But these factors do have relevance in an overall treatment context as they provide almost 30% of the minimally clinically important difference.