Written by ScienceLeadR · Congress briefing
EuGMS Congress, 16–18 September 2026. An independent congress briefing from ScienceLeadR.
Our briefing on Days 1 and 2 of the EuGMS 2026 Congress focuses on three pieces of evidence that share a practical question: what does it take to preserve function in older adults?
They rest on very different kinds of evidence, from a new conceptual framework, through a published implementation trial, to a trial we can so far describe only from its protocol. So we flag the evidence status alongside each one.
In this briefing
1. Are we assessing muscle health early enough?
Conceptual framework
2. FALLPREVENT: what improved, and what remains uncertain?
Published trial · 2025
3. ROBUST: can robot-assisted training preserve independence?
Protocol-based overview
1. Are we assessing muscle health early enough?
Featured in the Day 1 Sarcopenia Special Interest Group (SIG), a 2026 paper by Perkisas and colleagues in European Geriatric Medicine proposes a six-stage muscle health continuum.1 Instead of treating sarcopenia as a yes-or-no diagnosis, the framework places it within a broader trajectory of muscle decline, most commonly at stage 5 of 6, which the authors describe as established muscle failure.
A proposed six-stage continuum of muscle health
Stage 5 · Sarcopenia
The authors describe this as established muscle failure.
Schematic only. The paper defines and orders all six stages; sarcopenia maps most closely to stage 5.
The authors stress that the continuum is a conceptual framework, not a diagnostic tool, and that it has not been empirically validated. Their stated aim is to prompt discussion about earlier assessment, prevention and individualised care.
Clinical lens
Could longitudinal assessment identify opportunities for prevention before diagnostic thresholds are crossed?
2. FALLPREVENT: what improved, and what remains uncertain?
FALLPREVENT tested a tailored strategy for implementing Norway’s national recommendations on falls prevention in older adults. The hybrid type 3 cluster-randomised trial involved 25 clusters of municipalities and city districts, with 487 healthcare professionals at baseline.2,3
The primary outcome was healthcare professionals’ self-reported adherence to the recommendations, measured on a ten-item scale with a maximum of 50 points.
Self-reported adherence
Intervention minus control · difference in score points with 95% confidence interval.
9 months
+1.3 points
95% CI −0.2 to 2.9
Confidence interval crosses zero.
15 months
+1.8 points
95% CI 0.2 to 3.5
Confidence interval lies above zero.
Months from baseline. At 9 months the confidence interval crosses zero, so no difference was shown; at 15 months it lies entirely above zero.
Implementation experience also improved at 15 months (+2.2 points, P=.033), and fidelity was reported as higher in the intervention clusters for seminar attendance and implementation support.
No differences were detected in feasibility or fall-related injuries, both secondary outcomes. The sample size was calculated for adherence, not for these secondary outcomes, and the authors note that the gains in adherence were small and may be of limited clinical importance.
Clinical lens
Implementation gains are positive but modest; an injury-reduction benefit remains unestablished.
3. ROBUST: can robot-assisted training preserve independence?
ROBUST is a single-centre randomised controlled trial at Odense University Hospital, Svendborg, testing whether robot-assisted training during an acute hospital stay can prevent functional decline in older patients.4 It was selected as a Day 2 Director’s Choice.
Trial comparison
Active robot-assisted resistance training
versus
Passive robot-assisted sham training
Both groups also received standard physiotherapy and were offered protein supplements
Who was eligible
Adults aged 65 and over who could walk before admission, with or without assistance, but could not walk unassisted at enrolment. Exclusions included delirium and severe dementia.
Primary outcome, baseline to discharge
Change in Barthel Index-100 and the 30-second chair stand test
Secondary outcome, follow-up
Functional status at 1 and 3 months
Clinical lens
Assess discharge effects within this selected population; secondary follow-up informs persistence.
The common thread
All three point toward acting before function is lost: spotting muscle decline earlier, embedding falls prevention in routine care, and keeping patients active in hospital. The evidence behind each is not equal, though. The muscle health continuum has not yet been validated, FALLPREVENT modestly improved professionals’ self-reported adherence without showing an effect on injuries, and we could not find ROBUST’s overall results in public sources.
Working in frailty, muscle health, falls or rehabilitation?
Help collaborators find your expertise.
Bring your publications, clinical trials, congress contributions and affiliations together in one profile. Review your record, highlight your expertise and become more discoverable for research collaborations and speaking opportunities.
References
- Perkisas S, Brockhattingen KK, López Jiménez E, et al. Rethinking sarcopenia: a conceptual shift towards a muscle health continuum. Eur Geriatr Med. 2026;17:1095–1109. doi.org/10.1007/s41999-026-01485-z
- Bjerk M, Pripp AH, Skyrud KD, et al. Tailored implementation of national recommendations on falls prevention amongst older adults in municipalities in Norway (FALLPREVENT): a hybrid type 3 cluster-randomised trial. Age Ageing. 2025;54:afaf312. doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afaf312
- Bjerk M, Flottorp SA, Pripp AH, et al. Tailored implementation of national recommendations on fall prevention among older adults in municipalities in Norway (FALLPREVENT trial): a study protocol for a cluster-randomised trial. Implement Sci. 2024;19:5. doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01334-2
- Bertelsen AS, Masud T, Suetta C, et al. ROBot-assisted physical training of older patients during acUte hospitaliSaTion: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ROBUST). Trials. 2024;25:235. doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08044-6
This is an independent congress briefing prepared by ScienceLeadR. It is not an official EuGMS publication, and it summarises publicly available sources for scientific information only.
