Karinkanta 2007.
| Methods | Type of study: RCT | |
| Participants | Number of participants randomised: 149 Losses: Total = 5. (4 from the training groups and 1 from control.) (Drop out rate 3.4%) Age: RES = 72.7 (2.5); BAL = 72.9 (2.3); COMB = 72.9 (2.2); CON = 72 (2.1) Sex: women Health status defined by authors: healthy older (< 70) females Residential status of participants: community dwelling Setting: Finland Inclusion: Willing to participate; age between 70 to 79 years; full understanding of study procedures; no history of illness contraindicating exercise or limiting participation in exercise programs, no history of illness affecting balance or bones; no uncorrected vision problems; no medications known to affect balance or bone metabolism (12 months before enrolment). Exclusion: Involved in intense exercise more than 2x week or t‐score for femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) lower than ‐2.5 |
|
| Interventions | EXERCISE GROUP (STRENGTH) (n = 37) = resistance training. 75‐80% 1 RM (repetition maximum) 3 sets of 8‐10. Large muscle group ex = sit‐stand with weighted vest, squats, leg press, hip abduct, hip extension, calf raise, rowing with resistance machines. Different combinations of above were used in 10 week cycle to prevent monotony. EXERCISE GROUP (GBFT) (n = 37) = balance jumping training. Balance agility and impact exercise. 4 different aerobics and step aerobic programs which were repeated EXERCISE GROUP (MULTIPLE) (n = 38) = resistance and balance jumping training. Reistance and balance training on alternate weeks as above CONTROL GROUP: (N=37) no training Duration and intensity: 3x weekly for 12 months, 50 mins. Warm up 7‐10 mins; 25‐30 mins exercise; 8 to 10 minutes cool down Supervisor: exercise leaders of UKK institute Supervision: groups but uncertain of number in each as not stated Setting: not described |
|
| Outcomes | Figure‐of‐8 running test 10 m (s) Compliance/adherence:mean training compliance = attendance 67% (RES = 74%; COMB = 67%; BAL = 59%) Adverse events:14 due to musculoskeletal injuries or symptoms ‐ 2 falls but they returned to classes. No difference in monthly reported health problems with exercisers and controls. |
|
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Computer generated randomisation list drawn up by statistician, blinded to study participants and their characteristics, randomly allocated participants into 4 groups. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Statistician, blinded to study participants and their characteristics, randomly allocated participants into 4 groups |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Intention‐to‐treat and per protocol analysis |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All main outcome measures 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) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to permit judgement |
| Were the treatment and control group comparable at entry? | Low risk | Statistics reported groups equivalent at baseline |
| Was the surveillance active, and of clinically appropriate duration (i.e. at least 3 months post intervention)? | Low risk | Immediately post intervention data, and follow‐up data at 1 year post intervention reported |