Brown 2002.
| Methods | Study design: RCT Number of study arms: 2 Length of follow‐up: 14 months | |
| Participants | Setting: Perth, Western Australia Number of participants: 99 Number analysed: 71 Number lost to follow‐up: 28 Sample: men and women recruited by press releases in 11 newspapers and information brochures distributed to organisations, GPs, etc; 6 pairs of people with the same residential address randomised to the same group Age (years): N = 101 aged 75 to 84, N = 48 aged 85 to 94 Sex: 79% female Inclusion criteria: age ≥ 75; community‐living; independent in basic ADL; able to walk 20 m without personal assistance Exclusion criteria: cognitive impairment (MMSE ≤ 24); various conditions, e.g. angina, claudication, cerebrovascular disease, low or high blood pressure, major systemic disease, mental illness |
|
| Interventions | Randomised into 3 groups: 2 intervention groups (1 group‐based balance, strength and aerobic training, and 1 social intervention group) and 1 control group. Only group‐based balance, strength and aerobic training and control group included in this review 1. Group‐based balance, strength and aerobic training: individualised and progressed, elastic tubing and free weights used for strength training, home practice of a functional task; 1 hour, 2 a week, 16 weeks 2. Control group: no intervention |
|
| Outcomes | 1. Number of people who experienced 1 or more falls (risk of falling) 2. Number of people who died |
|
| Duration of the study | 56 weeks | |
| Adherence | Adherence measured by session attendance 1. Group‐based balance, strength and aerobic training group: mean attendance; 85% (22 ‐ 26 sessions), range of 62 ‐ 100% (16 sessions) |
|
| Notes | Source of funding: not reported
Economic information: not reported Only group‐based balance, strength and aerobic training and control group included in this review |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "randomised into one of three groups using a table of random numbers" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Randomised into one of 3 groups "by a physiotherapist uninvolved in the study." |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Participants and personnel not blind to allocated group but impact of non‐blinding unclear |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Falls | Unclear risk | Fall data collected in same manner in each group. Study reports outcome assessors were blinded, but it is unclear whether blinded assessors conducted the telephone follow‐ups for falls |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Fractures | Unclear risk | Not applicable |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Hospital admission, medical attention and adverse events | Unclear risk | Not applicable |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Health related quality of life (self report) | Unclear risk | Not applicable |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Falls and fallers | High risk | More than 20% of outcome data are missing (28%). Unbalanced losses in intervention and control groups |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Fall data were collected but number of falls not reported |
| Method of ascertaining falls (recall bias) | Low risk | Participants provided details of falls in monthly report sheet returned in reply‐paid addressed envelopes. No mention of telephone calls |