| Methods |
RCT, factorial design (comparison of floor surface types not included here)
Method of randomisation: randomised envelopes
Assessor blinding: no
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 22
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no |
| Participants |
Location: UK
N = 58
Sample: hospitalised older people
Age: mean 81 years
Inclusion criteria: admitted to elderly care rehabilitation ward from Feb to Sept 1996, consent from patient and carers
Exclusion criteria: not reported |
| Interventions |
PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 2 LL
Equipment: not reported
Intensity: high (maximum weight the patient could manage)
Frequency: twice daily
Reps/Sets: 10/3
Program duration: not reported (length of hospital stay)
Setting: hospital
Supervision: full
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: regular in‐hospital daily physiotherapy |
| Outcomes |
Falls (during hospital stay)
Barthel Index (ADL measure)
Strength (hand‐held dynamometer, hand‐grip strength)
Comments on adverse events: no |
| Notes |
|
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment? |
Low risk |
A ‐ Adequate |
