Lin 2007.
| Methods | Type of study: RCT | |
| Participants | Number of participants randomised: 150 Losses: 25 Age: 76.8 mean age Sex: 49% men. Health status defined by authors: aged 65 or over and had suffered an injury as a result of a fall in the past 4 weeks Residential status of participants: community Setting: Taiwan Inclusion: residents aged 65 and over who has required medical attention due to a fall in the previous 4 weeks. Exclusion: none stated |
|
| Interventions | EXERCISE GROUP (MULTIPLE) (n = 50 ): stretching, strengthening and balance training exercises. An individualised exercise program was given by a physio and individuals were asked to do this 3x week. The programme was checked every 2 weeks during a home visit. Stretching as of major joints of body; strengthening of the legs and trunk muscles and balance (sit to stand, single leg and tandem standing backward and sideways walking and turning 360) Home Safety Assessment and Modification group (n = 50) a visit every 2 weeks of 30‐40 mins. List of specially recommended modifications of the individuals home environmental hazards provided. 14 inexpensive modifications designed for study were completed in first week. CONTROL GROUP (n = 50): Education with social visit to persons home every 2 weeks for 30‐40 mins with leaflets provided on balance stretching strengthening and home environmental improvements. Duration and intensity: 4 month study with a home visit every 2 weeks lasting for 30‐40 mins for each group Supervisor: Physio supervised exercise and public health workers supervised the other groups Supervision: as above individual supervision Setting: individuals own home and assessments in home |
|
| Outcomes | Tinetti balance scores (score 0 to 26) Functional reach (cm) Compliance/adherence: not reported Adverse events:not reported |
|
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to permit judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to permit judgement |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Used mixed linear models which account for missing data and reported characteristics of missing subjects. However the mean values reported are of the subjects they could measure data on. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between drop‐outs of any group. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | 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) | Low risk | Reported |
| Were the treatment and control group comparable at entry? | Low risk | No difference between groups apart from alcohol use. |
| Was the surveillance active, and of clinically appropriate duration (i.e. at least 3 months post intervention)? | Low risk | 2 and 4 months after the 4 month intervention ended |