| Methods |
RCT with three groups, PRT, mobility exercise programme and attention control
Method of randomisation: sealed envelopes in sequence, computer generated random number tables generated the sequence
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: no, but attention control used
Loss to follow‐up: 7 from PRT and control group
Intention‐to‐treat analysis: no
Post‐program follow up: no, but program 6 months long |
| Participants |
Location: UK
N = 86 total (55 in PRT vs control)
Sample: residents of sheltered housing complexes
Age: mean 82 years
Inclusion criteria: age 75 years and over, limited mobility requiring the use of a walking aid, dependence in functional activities of daily living requiring the assistance of home help at least once per week
Exclusion criteria: major neurological disease, unstable cardiovascular disease, severe cognitive impairment |
| Interventions |
PRT versus control and versus mobility
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 24 (UL, LL, trunk)
Equipment: theraband, progressive thickness
Intensity: low‐moderate
Frequency: daily
Reps/Sets: 5‐10/1
Program Duration: 26 weeks
Setting: home
Supervision: low ‐ visited at home every 3‐4 weeks
Adherence: not reported
2. Control Group: health education visits every 3‐4 weeks
3. Mobility Group: same 24 exercises, but with no resistance |
| Outcomes |
TUAG
Sit to stand test (time to complete 10 full stands)
Grip strength
Functional reach
ADL (Barthel Index)
Comments on adverse events: yes |
| Notes |
|
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment? |
Low risk |
A ‐ Adequate |
