Lin 2007.
| Methods | Study design: RCT Number of study arms: 2 Length of follow‐up: 6 months |
|
| Participants | Setting: Taiwan Number of participants: 100 Number analysed: 100 Number lost to follow‐up: 0 Sample: residents of rural agricultural area Age (years): mean 76.5 Sex: 51% female Inclusion criteria: medical attention for a fall in previous 4 weeks, ≥ 65 years Exclusion criteria: none described |
|
| Interventions | Randomised into 3 groups: 2 intervention groups (1 individual balance, strength and flexibility training group, 1 home safety assessment and modification group) and 1 control group. Only Individual balance, strength and flexibility training group and control group included in this review 1. Individual balance, strength and flexibility training: Home‐based exercises with physiotherapist, used 1 kg ankle weights for strengthening if able, 40 ‐ 60‐minute sessions, 3 x or more a week for 4 months 2. Control: 1 social visit by a public health worker 30 to 40‐minute every 2 weeks for 4 months with fall prevention pamphlets provided |
|
| Outcomes | 1. Rate of falls 2. Health‐related quality of life 3. Number of people who died |
|
| Duration of the study | 16 weeks | |
| Adherence | Not reported | |
| Notes | Source of funding: Bureau of Health Promotion, Department of Health, National Science Council Economic information: not reported |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Block randomised. Insufficient information to permit judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to permit judgement |
| 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 | Quote: "Participants were asked to report their falls by telephone or postcard; they were also contacted by telephone every 2 weeks to ascertain the occurrence of falling". The method of ascertaining falls was the same in all groups. Blinding of assessors not reported |
| 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) | High risk | Participants were not blinded to allocated group |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Falls and fallers | High risk | More than 20% of fall outcome data are missing (21%) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Falls were measured, but number of fallers was not reported. Adverse events were not reported |
| Method of ascertaining falls (recall bias) | Low risk | Prospective. Reported falls by telephone or postcard when they occurred. Phoned every 2 weeks to ascertain occurrence of falls |