| Methods |
RCT with 3 groups: PRT, control, and aerobic group
Method of randomisation: manually perform by drawing lots
Assessor blinding: No
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 4 in PRT group, 3 in endurance group (aerobic)
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes done at the 30th month
Post‐program follow up: no |
| Participants |
Location: Finland
N = 27 (16 in PRT)
Sample: elder women
Age: range 76‐78 years
Inclusion criteria: no severe diseases or functional impairments
Exclusion criteria: not reported |
| Interventions |
PRT versus control and versus aerobic (Note: participants in all groups were given 600mg calcium per day)
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 4UL, 4LL
Equipment: resistance training machines
Intensity: high ‐ completed 8RM
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: 8/3
Program Duration: 2 years
Setting: gym
Supervision: full
Adherence: 74%
2. Control Group: non‐exercise group
3. Aerobic Fitness Group: N = 15; 3 sessions per week, performed same exercises as PRT group but with no resistance, plus added stationary cycling for 40 second stations |
| Outcomes |
PeakVO2
Peak Power
Comments on adverse events: yes |
| Notes |
Data from PRT and aerobic training group were compared |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment? |
Unclear risk |
B ‐ Unclear |
