Cerny 1998.
| Methods | Study design: RCT Number of study arms: 2 Length of follow‐up: 6 months | |
| Participants | Setting: California, USA Number of participants: 28 Number analysed: 28 Number lost to follow‐up: 0 Sample: community‐dwelling "well elderly" (proportion of women not stated); some pairs of people randomised to the same group where they were (e.g. dependent on the other for transport) Age (years): mean 71 (SD 4) Inclusion criteria: none described Exclusion criteria: none described |
|
| Interventions | 1. Group‐based balance, strength, flexibility, aerobic training and brisk walking: 1½ hours, 3 a week, 6 months 2. Control: no intervention | |
| Outcomes | 1. Number of people who experienced 1 or more falls (risk of falling) | |
| Duration of the study | 24 weeks | |
| Adherence | Not reported | |
| Notes | Source of funding: not reported
Economic information: not reported Contact with lead author but no full paper or report prepared Email communication about fall data, response received, data not included in review |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Randomised by coin toss. Individually randomised but some clusters, e.g. couples or 2 women where 1 was dependent on the other for transport (personal communication reported in Gillespie 2012) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Coin toss on site |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Participants and personnel not blinded to allocated group but impact of non‐blinding unclear |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Falls | Unclear risk | Unclear if assessors were blinded, insufficient information to permit judgement |
| 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 | Low risk | No missing outcome data for falls |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Fall data were collected but number of falls was not reported; adverse events were not reported |
| Method of ascertaining falls (recall bias) | High risk | Assume retrospective recall and 3‐ and 6‐month assessment |