| Methods |
RCT with 4 groups: PRT, control, functional training, and combined training
Method of randomisation: the random allocation sequence was generated by computer by two independent students
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 21/57 in PRT; 22/60 in function‐skills; 17/56 in combined training; 23/51 in controls
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes. Data analysed: 40 in PRT, 44 in function‐skills, 44 in combined training, 31 in controls
Post‐program follow up: no |
| Participants |
Location: Netherlands
N = 108 (57 in PRT)
Sample: elders lived in long‐term care facilities
Age: mean 81.3 (SD = 4.4)
Inclusion criteria: 1) aged 65 or older; 2) living in a nursing home or residential care facility; 3) able to walk 6 m or more (with or without a walking aid); 4) able to comprehend the study procedures; 5) no medical contraindication for study participation; 6) no rapidly progressive or terminal illness; 7) and not moving away from the home within the 6‐months intervention period
Exclusion criteria: not reported |
| Interventions |
PRT versus control, versus functional training, and versus combined training
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 3UL/2LL
Equipment: TechnoGym equipment, dump bells and ankle/wrist weights
Intensity: high (60‐80% of 1 RM)
Frequency: Ex2
Reps/Sets: 8‐12/2
Duration: 24 weeks
Setting: long‐term care facility (Gym?)
Supervision: full by a physical therapist and an assistant
Adherence: 78 %
2.Control group: mean age =81, educational program (group discussion about topics of interest)
3. Functional training group: N=60, mean age = 82 years, game‐like or cooperative activities
4. Combined training group: N=56, mean age = 81 years, one strength training and one functional training per week |
| Outcomes |
Primary: physical activities/ADL disability
Secondary: muscle strength, vitality plus scales, balance, gait speed, chair rise
Comments on adverse events: yes |
| Notes |
Comparisons: PRT versus control, PRT versus functional training |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment? |
Low risk |
A ‐ Adequate |
