Table 1.
Characteristics of Studies Included in Systematic Review
| Study | Design | Participant details | Intervention and frequency | Intervention parameters | Adherence rate | Dependent variables | PEDro score | Results | Cohen's d effect size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arnold et al.32 (2008) | RCT1 | Mean (SD) age: RG=69.1 (6.3) y, CG=67.7 (6.3) y No. of participants: RG=33, CG=2710; dropouts: RG=6, CG=4 |
50-min sessions, 3×/wk; supervised by physical therapist and assistant; duration: 20 wk |
Land exercise targeting upper and lower extremities and trunk strength (5–10 repetitions, increasing to 20–25) | 67% attendance rate for RG, with dropouts eliminated attendance was 78% | OFDQ, functional reach test, backward tandem walk, Berg Balance Scale | 7 | There were no differences in balance, function, and QOL scores between land exercises compared to no exercises. | 0.19 |
| Chien et al.6 (2005) | RCT1 | Mean (SD) age: RG=61.7 (9.0) y, CG=58.6 (9.3) y No. of participants: RG=14, CG=147; dropouts: RG=4, CG=3 |
HEP 3×/d, 7 d/wk; first introductory session with supervision; duration: 12 wk |
Resistance exercises for abdominals, low back musculature, and hip musculature (3 sets of 10 repetitions held for 3 s initially, increasing to 10 s) | 11/14 participants (78.6%) completed programme with over 90% compliance, meeting 70% compliance requirement | SF-36, trunk flexion/extension strength, spinal ROM in sagittal, frontal and transverse planes, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire | 7 | The exercise group increased spinal range of motion, velocity, trunk extensor, and flexor strength and improved in multiple domains in the SF-36 but not the physical examination domain. | RP 1.74 PF 0.27 |
| Hongo et al.33 (2007) | RCT1 | Mean (SD) age: RG=67 (5) y, CG=67 (7) y No. of participants: RG=42, CG=386; dropouts: RG=2, CG=4 |
1×/d, 5 d/wk; duration: 4 mo |
Single, unsupervised HEP: back extension (1 set of 10 repetitions) |
Not reported | JOQOL, isometric strength | 5 | QOL scores increased in the exercise group and were unchanged in the control group. Back extensor strength increased in both the control and exercise groups. | 0.46 |
| Grahn Kronhed et al.34 (2009) | RCT1 | Mean (95% CI) age: RG=71.6 (69.8–73.4) y; CG=71.2 (69.4–73.0) y No. of participants: RG=37, CG=36; dropouts: RG=6, CG=2 |
60-min sessions, 2×/wk; supervised by physical therapist; duration: 4 mo |
Back, abdomen, and extremity strengthening (5–6 sets of 15 repetitions with progressively increased load) | 80% average attendance rate | SF-36, pain, balance, handgrip and back-straightening test | 7 | The exercise group improved in multiple domains in the SF-36. | RP 0.08 PF 0.42 |
| Liu-Ambrose et al.35 (2005) | RCT2 | Mean (SD) age: RG=79.6 (2.1) y, CG=79.5 (3.2) y No. of participants: RG: 34, CG: 346; dropouts: RG: 2, CG: 2 |
50-min supervised, group-based sessions, 2×/wk; duration: 25 wk |
Resistance training targeting upper and lower extremities and trunk strength (2 sets of 10–15 repetitions at 50–60% 1RM, increased to 2 sets of 6–8 repetitions at 75–85% 1 RM) |
Average compliance of 85% | Qualeffo-41, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire | 6 | Resistance and agility training significantly improved QOL. | 0.14 |
RCT1=randomized controlled trial with true control group; RG=research group; CG=control group; OFDQ=Osteoporosis Functional Disability Questionnaire; QOL=quality of life; HEP=home exercise programme; ROM=range of motion; SF-36=Short Form-36; RP=Role physical; PF=physical function; JOQOL=Japanese Osteoporosis Quality of Life Questionnaire; RCT2=randomized controlled trial with the control group receiving intervention; 1RM=1 repetition maximum; Qualeffo-41=Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis.