Davis 2011.
| Methods | Study design: RCT Number of study arms: 3 Length of follow‐up: 9 months | |
| Participants | Setting: Vancouver, Canada Number of participants: 155 Number analysed: 155 Number lost to follow‐up: 0 Sample: community‐dwelling women Age (years): mean 70 (range 65 ‐ 75) Sex: 100% female Inclusion criteria: aged 65 ‐ 75; cognitively intact; visual acuity 20/40 or better Exclusion criteria: resistance training in the last 6 months; medical condition for which exercise is contraindicated; neurogenerative disease; taking cholinesterase inhibitors; depression; on hormone replacement therapy during previous 12 months |
|
| Interventions | 1. Group‐based progressive high‐intensity resistance training classes: gym equipment and free weights used with a "progressive, high intensity protocol", 1 a week, 1 year 2. Group‐based progressive high‐intensity resistance training classes: gym equipment and free weights used with a "progressive, high intensity protocol", 2 a week, 1 year 3. Group‐based balance and tone: stretching, range of motion, pelvic floor, balance, relaxation exercises using body weight alone, 2 a week, 1 year | |
| Outcomes | 1. Rate of falls | |
| Duration of the study | 52 weeks | |
| Adherence | Not reported | |
| Notes | Source of funding: The Vancouver Foundation, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, the Canada Foundation for Innovation Economic information: Mean cost per person (intervention): CAD 353 once‐weekly resistance training, CAD 706 twice‐weekly resistance training, CAD 706 twice‐weekly balance and tone classes. Mean healthcare costs resulting from falls, mean total healthcare costs respectively: CAD 547, CAD 1379 once‐weekly resistance training; CAD 184, CAD 1684 twice‐weekly resistance training; CAD 162, CAD 1772 twice‐weekly balance and tone classes. Incremental cost per fall prevented/per QALY gained: both once‐ and twice‐weekly resistance training less costly and more effective than balance and tone classes Cost‐effectiveness analysis and cost utility analysis reported in primary reference 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 | Quote: "The randomization sequence was generated by www.randomization.com." |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "The randomization sequence … was concealed until interventions were assigned. This sequence was held independently and remotely by the research coordinator" |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Not possible to blind participants or personnel but both groups received an exercise intervention so unlikely to introduce bias |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Falls | Low risk | Fall calendars used to assess falls in all groups. Quote: "The assessors were blinded to the participants' assignments" |
| 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 | Method of ascertaining adverse events unclear |
| 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 fall data |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Fall data were collected but number of fallers was not reported |
| Method of ascertaining falls (recall bias) | Low risk | Quote: "We used monthly fall diary calendars to track all falls for each participant during the 12‐month study period." |