Baker 2007.
| Methods | Type of study: RCT | |
| Participants | Number of participants randomised: 38 (20 in intervention and 18 in control) Losses: 6 (2 drop outs from control and 4 intervention did not complete training) Age:76.6 (6.1) Sex: 14 men and 24 women Health status as defined by authors: not reported but healthy according to criteria Residential status of participants: residential village Setting:retirement village, USA Inclusion:age 60 or over; resident in retirement village, willing to be randomised Exclusion: acute or terminal illness, unstable metabolic or cardiovascular disease, contraindications to planned exercise, inability to commit to 10 week exercise programme. |
|
| Interventions | EXERCISE GROUP: (MULTIPLE) (n = 20): strength, endurance and balance components. Aerobic 2 days/week, balance 1 day week, strength training 3 times per week. Strength: 2 x 8 reps of knee flex, knee ext, hip flex and ext, hip abduction, chest press, seated row, lat pull down (80% of 1 RM (repetition maximum) ) adjusted over training period. Aerobic: 20 mins recumbent stepper or cycle ergometer. Balance: Static exs (single leg stand, side to side weight shift, forward backward weight shift), Dynamic exs (A‐P and lateral stepping over objects, 20 ft tandem walk, heel walk, toe walk). 8 exs performed in sequence twice. CONTROL GROUP: (n = 18): No exercise Duration and intensity: 3 to 4 hours a week for 10 weeks in 3 sessions a week Supervisor: experienced trainer Supervision: 1 to 5 participants in a group Setting: gymnasium in retirement village |
|
| Outcomes | Static balance measured using a progressive test protocol (balance index) Dynamic balance: tandem walk (time and errors recorded) Gait velocity : 2 m at normal pace (m/s) Short Physical Performance Battery ‐ calculated from 3 measures above Compliance/adherence:.Median compliance was 86.6% including drop outs. Adverse events: No adverse events reported. |
|
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Computerised programme using randomly permuted blocks stratified by gender in blocks of 4 by investigator not on site and not involved in testing or training. Opaque enveloped used to conceal allocation. Randomised after baseline assessment |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | But 80% of time assessor guessed correctly the allocation suggesting incomplete maintenance of blinding |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Intention‐to‐treat analysis |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All measures intended were reported on |
| Other bias | Low risk | The study appears to be free of other sources of bias |
| Blinding (participant) | High risk | Not possible |
| Blinding (assessor) | Low risk | Reported |
| Were the treatment and control group comparable at entry? | Low risk | No differences reported on baseline characteristics with a potential to influence the effect of the intervention |
| Was the surveillance active, and of clinically appropriate duration (i.e. at least 3 months post intervention)? | High risk | Only immediately post intervention data, no follow‐up data reported |