| Methods |
RCT
Method of randomisation: computer generated sequence, stratified and block randomization
Assessor blinding: yes
Participant blinding: not reported
Loss to follow‐up: 3 withdrawn (1 in control), 4 death (2 in PRT)
Intention‐to‐teat analysis: yes
Post‐program follow up: no |
| Participants |
Location: Australia
N = 51 (25 in PRT)
Sample: fall‐related lower limb fracture
Age: mean 84.8 years
Inclusion criteria: at least 70 years old, fall‐related lower limb fracture
Exclusion criteria: (1) did not reside within southern Adelaide, (2) were unable to comprehend instructions relating to positioning of the upper arm for eligibility assessment, (3) were unable to fully weight bear on the side of the injury for more than seven days post admission, (4) were not independently mobile prefracture, (5) were medically unstable more than 7 days post admission, (6) were suffering from cancer, chronic renal failure, unstable angina or unstable diabetes or (7) were not classified as malnourished |
| Interventions |
PRT versus control
1. PRT
Type of Ex: 5 LL
Equipment: elastic band
Intensity: was appropriate to baseline strength, pain level and range of motion
Frequency: Ex3
Reps/Sets: increased to 8/2 if exercise could be completed in good form
Duration: 12 weeks
Setting: a teaching hospital
Supervision: full‐pysiotherapist
Adherence: > 86%
2. Control group: attention control, week 1‐6: tri‐weekly home visits, week 7‐12: weekly home visit; discussion of general information during the visit |
| Outcomes |
Primary: SF‐12
Secondary: strength measure, gait speed
Comments on adverse events: no |
| Notes |
Reported Median & 95%CI. Data from participants who took nutrition supplementation were not extracted. |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment? |
Unclear risk |
B ‐ Unclear |
