Nitz 2004.
| Methods | Study design: RCT Number of study arms: 2 Length of follow‐up: 6 months |
|
| Participants | Setting: Brisbane, Australia Number of participants: 73 Number analysed: 45 Number lost to follow‐up: 28 Sample: volunteers recruited through advertising and fliers Age (years): mean 75.8 (SD 7.8) Sex: 92% female Inclusion criteria: aged > 60; living independently in the community; at least 1 fall in previous year Exclusion criteria: unstable cardiac condition, living too far from exercise class site, unable to guarantee regular attendance |
|
| Interventions | 1. Group‐based balance: using workstation (circuit training) format, 1 hour a week for 10 weeks 2. Control: Group‐based gentle exercise and stretching, 1 hour a week for 10 weeks | |
| Outcomes | 1. Rate of falls | |
| Duration of the study | 24 weeks | |
| Adherence | Adherence measured as participants who completed the study 1. Group‐based balance group: 24 2. Group‐based gentle exercise and stretching group: 21 |
|
| Notes | Source of funding: not reported Economic information: not reported |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "Computer‐generated random numbers" |
| 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 implementing the intervention not blinded to allocated group, but impact of non‐blinding unclear |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Falls | Low risk | Quote: "Partipants used a calendar on which each day was marked for a fall ... or incident free day" Quote: "The physiotherapists who undertook all assessments of the participants were blinded to the intervention group allocation" |
| 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 fall data are missing (38%) |
| 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 | Falls ascertained by marked calendar returned monthly |