| Methods |
RCT (note: results extrapolated from graph)
Method of randomisation: not reported
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no but attention control group
Loss to follow‐up: 7
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no |
| Participants |
Location: USA
N = 63
Sample: community‐dwelling men and women
Age: mean 69.2 years (SE 0.8) in the PRT group
Inclusion criteria: community‐dwelling, 65+,
Exclusion criteria: cardiopulmonary/ cardiovascular disease, intolerance to exercise, functional disabilities that would contraindicate strength training, unable to commit to a 12‐week program, currently involved in strength training more than 1 hour per week |
| Interventions |
PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 6UL, 6LL
Equipment: surgical tubing
Intensity: low‐moderate ‐ increased tubing thickness when they could perform 12 reps of an exercise
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: upper body 10/ 2; lower body 10/ 3
Program Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: exercise class for at least one session per week, home for other session(s)
Supervision: full in exercise class, low at home
Adherence: 90%
2. Control Group: attended two 3‐hour driver education classes, continue usual activities, could have 4 weeks of exercise at the end of the trial |
| Outcomes |
Gait speed
Balance (modified Romberg protocol)
Comments on adverse events: no |
| Notes |
|
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment? |
Unclear risk |
B ‐ Unclear |
