Suzuki 2004.
| Methods | Study design: RCT Number of study arms: 2 Length of follow‐up: 20 months |
|
| Participants | Setting: Tokyo, Japan Number of participants: 52 Number analysed: 44 Number lost to follow‐up: 8 Age (years): mean 78 (SD 3.9), range 73 to 90 Sex: 100% female Sample and inclusion criteria: women in the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology Longitudinal Interdisciplinary Study on Aging attending a comprehensive geriatric health examination; living at home Exclusion criteria: unable to measure muscle strength, poor mobility due to hemiplegia, poorly‐controlled blood pressure, communication difficulties due to impaired hearing |
|
| Interventions | 1. Group‐based strength, balance and gait training plus home practice: 0.5 ‐ 1.5 kg weights and light‐medium rubber bands used for strengthening, 1‐hour class, fortnightly for 6 months plus individual home‐based exercises 30 minutes daily, 3 a week 2. Control: pamphlet and advice on falls prevention | |
| Outcomes | 1. Rate of falls 2. Number of people who experienced 1 or more falls (risk of falling) | |
| Duration of the study | 87 weeks | |
| Adherence | Adherence measured by session attendance 1. Group‐based strength, balance and gait training plus home practice: attendance ranged from 64 ‐ 86%, with a mean of 75%. 15 participants (54%) attended all 10 sessions. 6 who attended 0 ‐ 3 times were regarded as failing to master the exercise programme. Among the 22 participants who completed the intervention, 21 (96%) participated in > 7 sessions |
|
| Notes | Source of funding: Tokyo Metropolitan Government Economic information: not reported |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | States "randomized" but method of randomisation not described |
| 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 | Falls reported by participants who were aware of their group allocation, using same method in each group. Does not state whether outcome assessors were blind to 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 | Unclear risk | < 20% of fall data are missing (15%). Mild imbalance in missing data from intervention group (n = 6) and control group (n = 2). Reason for missing data in the control group is unclear |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Minimum set of expected outcomes not reported (adverse events not reported) |
| Method of ascertaining falls (recall bias) | High risk | Retrospective recall. Falls and fractures recorded retrospectively at interview at 8 months and 20 months after intervention |