| 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 |
