| Methods |
RCT: (note: data reported by dominant and non‐dominant leg. Data for dominant leg used in analyses)
Method of randomisation: not stated
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: no
Loss to follow‐up: 4
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no |
| Participants |
Location: USA
N = 46
Sample: women from a community senior center
Age: mean 67.4 years
Inclusion criteria: female, from a community senior centre, age>60, independently ambulatory
Exclusion criteria: unstable cardiovascular disease, orthopaedic or neurological dysfunction, any other uncontrolled chronic conditions that would interfere with the safety and conduct of the training protocol |
| Interventions |
PRT versus control
1.PRT
Type of Ex: 7 LL
Equipment: velcro leg weights
Intensity: started low, progressed to moderate
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 3 of 14 by end of program
Duration: 16 weeks
Setting: group at local community centre (2 days/week) and home (1 day/week)
Supervision: full in group, none at home
Adherence: 86‐93%
2. Control Group: no intervention ‐ contacted to monitor health and activity level |
| Outcomes |
Strength and muscular endurance (isokinetic dynamometer)
Comments on adverse events: yes |
| Notes |
|
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment? |
Unclear risk |
B ‐ Unclear |
