| Methods |
RCT
Method of randomisation: done by a biostatistician
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: yes for the testosterone
Loss to follow‐up: 2/17 in low resistance group with placebo, 4/17 in high resistance group with placebo
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no |
| Participants |
Location: USA
N = 17‐HI; N = 17‐LI
Sample: recent functional decline
Age: mean 78.2 years (SD = 6.4)
Inclusion criteria: recent functional decline, at least 65 years old, serum total testosterone less than 480 ngd/L, and can give informed consent
Exclusion criteria: near terminal medical disorder, unresolved malignancy, prostate specific antigen > 10 ngm/L, possibility of prostate cancer, history of prostate cancer, disabling arthritis, neurological diseases or unstable cardiovascular disease |
| Interventions |
PRT (High intensity versus low intensity)
Type of Ex: 2 LL
Equipment: Keiser Sport Health Equipment
Intensity: low intensity: 20% 1RM; high intensity: 80% of 1 RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: not reported
Supervision: not reported
Adherence: 99% |
| Outcomes |
Muscle strength
Sit‐to‐stand
Gait speed
Stair climb
Comments on adverse events: yes |
| Notes |
Reported absolute change. High‐intensity leg exercise led to greater leg strength, No significance in aggregate physical performance score change between any intervention groups. Final score = baseline + change score. Final SD = baseline SD
Date from high intensity PRT and low intensity PRT were compared |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment? |
Low risk |
A ‐ Adequate |
