Skip to main content
. 2009 Jul 8;2009(3):CD002759. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002759.pub2

Baum 2003.

Methods RCT 
 Method of randomisation: a computer generated algorithm stratified by the location of the facility 
 Assessor blinding: yes 
 Participant blinding: not reported 
 Loss to follow‐up: 1/11 in PRT group 
 Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes 
 Post‐program follow up: no
Participants Location: USA 
 N = 20 (11 in PRT) 
 Sample: frail older adults living in long‐term care facility 
 Age: mean 88 years 
 Inclusion criteria: age greater than 65, residence at the facility longer than 3 months, and the ability to ambulate alone, with assistive devises or one caregiver 
 Exclusion criteria: unstable acute illness or chronic illness; an inability to follow a two‐step command; and assaultive behavior pattern; or unwilling to discontinue any current physical therapy
Interventions PRT versus control 
 1. PRT 
 Type of Ex: 5LL 
 Equipment: soft ankle or wrist weights, therabands, weighted ball 
 Intensity: increased every week 
 Frequency: Ex3 
 Reps/ sets: increased from 5/1 to 10/2 
 Duration: 1 year (after 6 months the two groups switched program. the results extracted at the end of the first 6 months) 
 Setting: not reported, (Gym in the facility?) 
 Supervision: full by an exercise physiologist 
 Adherence: (80%‐Ex group; 56%‐control) 
 2. Control group: did activities such as painting, drawing, or puzzles with an art therapist or social worker, 3 times a week
Outcomes Primary: FIM, physical performance test 
 Secondary: TUAG, Berg balance scale 
 Comments on adverse events: yes
Notes Means and SDs at 12 months were not reported. Portion results at 6 months could be estimated from baseline score and change score. Because of small sample size, the precision is questionable.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Allocation concealment? Unclear risk B ‐ Unclear