Digestery
Lifestyle practices › Strength Training and Lifespan › Studies

Pooled review (meta-analysis)

Pooled review of 75 trials in stroke survivors: strength and walking improved, deaths unchanged

Saunders and colleagues · The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020

Original title: Physical fitness training for stroke patients.

Under review. A person has not yet checked this summary against the paper. It is written from the PubMed abstract. Until a person checks it, search engines are asked not to list this page.

What the study found

Mixed

Death was not changed by any training; risk differences were all 0.00 (19/3017 deaths at end of training). Too few data to judge resistance training on disability. Strength and walking speed improved.

The study at a glance

Type of study
Pooled review (meta-analysis)
Who or what was studied
75 studies, 3,017 people · mostly walking stroke survivors
What was tested
Heart-lung, resistance (20 studies, 779 people) or mixed training vs usual care or no exercise
What it measured
Several kinds of outcomes
Who has a stake
Company stake
One author gets small royalties (about GBP 100 a year) from a book on fitness training after stroke; no company tie.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2020
Source
PubMed record 32196635. This page is based on the abstract only.

How much this study counts

  • ✓Pools the results of 75 studies with 3,017 people.
  • •A pooled review is only as strong as the studies it pools.
  • •Measured several kinds of outcomes.
  • –Company stake: One author gets small royalties (about GBP 100 a year) from a book on fitness training after stroke; no company tie.
  • •Summarized from the PubMed abstract only. The full paper may hold details the abstract leaves out.

✓ Strength– Limit• Note

These points come from fixed rules about the type of study, its size and length, what it measured, and who has a stake. Every study on Digestery gets the same rules.

Where this study sits

This paper is not on the ladder. It is a pooled review (meta-analysis), and reviews and opinion pieces discuss studies that are already counted on the steps below.

↑ Stronger evidence

  1. Trials in people: death and healthy aging

    0

    Not done yet. This is the step that would answer the question.

  2. Trials in people: other measures

    9

    7 benefit, 2 no difference

  3. Trials in people: lab tests or safety

    0

    None among the papers we read.

  4. Population studies

    9

    8 benefit, 1 mixed

  5. Blood levels and genes

    0

    None among the papers we read.

↓ Weaker evidence

  • Points to benefit
  • Mixed
  • No difference
  • No direction
  • Points to harm

How it fits with the other research

The short answer to “Does strength training help you live longer?”

Linked to longer life; not proven.

Confidence: low. Based on 26 on-topic papers.

Read the full answer
  • Quoted in “What we found”: Trials that counted deaths found no difference, including a 3-year trial of 2157 adults aged 70 or older, but they had too few deaths to tell.
  • Part of the finding “Trials that counted deaths found no difference”.
  • Summed up in “What reviews found”: Pooled 75 trials with 3017 mostly walking stroke survivors, 20 of them resistance training (779 people). No training changed deaths (19/3017), too few to tell. Strength and walking speed improved; too few data on resistance training and disability.
  • Open item for a person: Saunders 2020: stake set to company for about GBP 100 a year in book royalties on stroke fitness training; decide if this counts.

Other reviews on this question

See all 26 studies on this question

How this page was made

Label

First read of the abstract
Claude Sonnet
Independent second read
Claude Haiku
Differences settled
The reviewer corrected 1 field after reading the abstract. Claude Opus 5.5.
Headline
Claude Sonnet, from the checked study record. A script checked its numbers and wording.
Numbers
Checked against the abstract by a script
“How much this study counts”
Fixed rules, the same for every study
Source check by a person
Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.

Spot an error? Email a flag with a link to your source, or use the form on the question page.