Clemson 2010.
| Methods | Type of study: RCT | |
| Participants | Number of participants randomised: 34 Losses: 25% controls, 6% exercise group Age: Ex = 81 (5.6) Control = 82 (6.3) Sex: 16 women, 18 men Residential status of participants: community dwelling Health status as defined by authors: healthy but at least 2 previous falls Setting: Australia Inclusion: community dwelling, aged 70 years or over, 2 or more previous falls Exclusion: moderate to severe cognitive problems, no conversational English, inability to ambulate independently, unstable or terminal medical illnesses, neurological conditions resulting in motor performance difficulties. |
|
| Interventions | EXERCISE GROUP (GBFT) (n = 16): LiFE programme. Four balance strategies (reduce base of support, move to limits of sway, shift weight from foot to foot, step over objects) and seven strength strategies (bending knees, on toes, on heels, up the stairs, sit to stand, move sideways, tighten muscles). Embedded in normal activities.
CONTROL GROUP (n = 18): usual activity Duration and intensity: 5 home visits, 2 booster visits over 3 month period and 2 follow‐up phone calls. Activities meant to be performed in everyday life (i.e. daily) Supervisor: physiotherapist Supervision: individual for first five visits then two booster visits over next three months Setting: home |
|
| Outcomes | Tandem walk over 3 m (s) One leg stance max 15 s (s) Tandem stand (s) Compliance/adherence: not reported Adverse events: No adverse events reported. |
|
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Random numbers table, stratified by age and falls history |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Investigator blind to allocation |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Intention‐to‐treat analysis, unequal rate of drop outs 25% controls, 6% exercise group) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to permit judgement |
| 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 | Blinded outcome assessor |
| Were the treatment and control group comparable at entry? | High risk | Significant differences in tandem stance eyes open (control group lower values) |
| Was the surveillance active, and of clinically appropriate duration (i.e. at least 3 months post intervention)? | Low risk | Assessments at immediately post intervention and 3 months follow‐up. |