Skip to main content
. 2011 Nov 9;2011(11):CD004963. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004963.pub3

Sykes 2004.

Methods Type of study: RCT
Participants Number of participants randomised: 40
Losses:13 (5 in exercise and 8 control)
N = 40 
 Age: 80 +/‐ 4.5 years (Exercise group 79.5 +/‐ 3.6 : Control 80.8 +/‐ 7.3) 
 Sex: 7 males, 20 females
Health status as defined by authors: healthy 
 Residential status of participants: community dwellers
Setting: Hong Kong 
 Inclusion:aged 75 years and older; ambulatory independent with or without aids for short distance of 20 metres; fell one or more times in previous 12 months 
 Exclusion: terminal illness or severe dementia; nonambulatory status; amputations or severe arthritis problems; major impairment of sensorimotor function due to neurological disease; unstable cardiovascular or pulmonary conditions or diseases; episodes of unconsciousness reported in the past year; mini mental status examination (MMSE) score less than 23.
Interventions EXERCISE GROUP (MULTIPLE): n = 20 Exercise session described as: 5 min warm up followed by leg strengthening exercises (using cuff weights and therabands and repetitions), Balance and Gait exercises (with progression) and 5 min cool down. 
 CONTROL GROUP: n = 20 not reported assumed usual activity 
 Duration and intensity: Introductory hour long class in centre with talk and demonstration of exercises. Then over the next 8 weeks : 45 minute daily exercise sessions at home 6 days a week and 30 minute walk twice a week. Daily activity diaries. 
 Supervisor: physiotherapist 
 Supervision: initial group session then phone calls weeks 1, 2, 4 and 6 
 Setting: initial class in centre then at home
Outcomes Berg Balance Scale (0 to 56 points)
Time to get‐up and go (TUG) (s)
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 Unclear risk Insufficient reporting of attrition/exclusions to permit judgement
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) Unclear risk Insufficient information to permit judgement
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.