Skip to main content

Table 1 Study characteristics

From: Effect of physical interventions on physical performance and physical activity in older patients during hospitalization: a systematic review

Author

Yeara

Reason for hospitalization

Setting (acute/ subacute, ward)

Group

Moment of measurement

Outcomesc#

PEDro scaled

Intervention

Nb, type, age (y)

Control

Nb, type, age (y)

BĂ¼rge [21]

2017

Dementia

Acute, psychogeriatric ward

78, Physical exercise program, 81.7 (7.7)

82, Usual care, 81.1 (7.7)

A, 4 weeks after A

BI e , FIM f

Sufficient

Czyzewski [17]

2013

Major abdominal surgery

Subacute, general and colorectal surgery ward

18, Physiotherapy based on elements of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation, 75 (5.8)

16, Usual care, 76 (5.6)

3 days before surgery, 4 days after surgery

10MWT g , TUG h , SAP i

Sufficient

Haines [23]

2007

Various diagnoses (e.g. orthopaedic, geriatric management, stroke)

Subacute, NG

93, Additional exercise program, 83 (IQR 77,88)

80, Usual care, 81

(IQR 75,86)

A, D

Number of falls, FRTj, TUGh, 6MWTk, Gait velocity, Step length, Muscle strength

Good

Hegerova [22]

2014

Various diagnoses (e.g. cardiovascular, infection, kidney)

Acute, internal medicine ward

100, Rehabilitation and nutritional intervention, 83.6 (3.8)

100, Usual care, 83.2 (3.8)

Day 2 of A, D

Lean body Mass, BIe,

Good

Jones [25]

2006

NG

Acute, general ward

80, Exercise program, 81.9 (8.0)

80, Usual care, 82.9 (7.6)

Within 2 days of A, D

ModifiedBI e , TUG h

Sufficient

Kim [15]

2013

NG

Subacute, NG

15, Horse riding simulation, 78.4 (6.2)

15, Ball exercise, 78.5 (6.6)

A, 8 weeks after A

Romberg test, FRT j TUG h , 10MWT g

Good

Laver [24]

2012

Various diagnoses (e.g. medical, pain, fall or fracture)

Subacute, geriatric rehabilitation ward

22, Interactive gaming program, 85.2 (4.7)

22, Usual care, 84.6 (4.4)

Day 2 of A, D

TUGh, ModifiedBBSl, SPPBm, IADLn, FIMf, ABCo

Good

Maggioni [37]

2009

Various diagnoses (e.g. cardiovascular, orthopaedic, neurological)

Subacute, rehabilitation ward

1. 10, Kinesiotherapy (KT), 81.2 (5.9)

2. 10, Electrical stimulation (ES), 84.1 (3.4)

3. 10, KT + ES, 82.2 (7.4)

10, Usual care, 82.1 (5.4)

A, D

Muscle strength, 6MWTk, Tinetti balance and gait test

Good

de Morton [19]

2007

Various diagnoses (e.g. respiratory, circulatory, digestive)

Acute, medical ward

110, Exercise program, 80 (8.0)

126, Usual care, 78 (7.0)

A, D

Discharge destination, TUGh, BIe, FACp,

Good

Oesch [28]

2017

Musculoskeletal impairment

Subacute, geriatric rehabilitation ward

26, Self-regulated exergames, 73.8 (IQR 67.9, 79.1)

28, Self-regulated conventional exercises, 74.3 (IQR 66.1, 79.3)

A, 10 days after A

Adherence, objective dynamic balance

Good

Parsons [16]

2016

Various diagnoses (e.g. cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, neurological)

Subacute, rehabilitation ward

26, Physical therapy and vibration training, 82.1 (6.4)

24, Usual care, 81.8 (8.0)

A, D

PPAq(muscle strength), FIMf

Good

Raymond [26]

2017

Various diagnoses (e.g. fracture, fall, respiratory)

Subacute, rehabilitation ward

231, High-intensity functional exercise, 84.5 (7.3)

223, Usual care, 84.1 (6.9)

A, < 48 before D

EMSr, BBSl, gait speed, TUGh

Good

Said [20]

2012

Various diagnoses (e.g. musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, falls)

Subacute, rehabilitation ward

22, Exercise program, 80.8 (4.6)

25, Usual care, 81.6 (6.5)

Within 2 days of A, < 48 h before D

DEMMIs, EMSr, TUGh, BIe

Good

Tibaek [27]

2013

Various diagnoses (e.g. falls, respiratory, medicine)

Subacute, geriatric rehabilitation ward

29, Progressive resistance strength training, 80 (6.5)

27, Usual care, 79 (7.5)

Within 3 days of A, D

TUGh, 30s-chair stand test, 10MWTg, BIe, Modified FACp

Good

Wnuk [18]

2016

Abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery

Subacute, general and vascular surgery ward

1. 15, Backward walking training, 68 (3)

2. 16, Forward walking training, 70 (3)

16, Usual care, 69 (4)

A, 7 days after surgery

6MWT k

Good

  1. All variables are presented as mean (SD) unless indicated otherwise. NG Not given, A Hospital admission, D Hospital discharge, #primary outcomes in bold, IQR Interquartile range, a = Year of publication, b = Number of patients at baseline, c = Secondary outcomes included of relevance of this systematic review, d = PEDro scale: 0–3 = insufficient, 4–5 = sufficient, 6–8 = good, 9–10 = excellent, e = Barthel Index, f = Functional Independence Measure, g = 10-Meter Walk Test, h = Time Up and Go, i = Scale of independent postoperative patient’s activity, j = Functional Reach Test, k = 6-min Walk Test, l = Berg Balance Scale, m = Short Physical Performance Battery, n = Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale, o = Activities-patient tailored Balance Confidence scale, p = Functional Ambulation Categories, q = Physiological Profile Assessment, r = Elderly Mobility Scale, s = de Morton Mobility Index