Taylor 2012.
| Methods | Study design: RCT Number of study arms: 2 Length of follow‐up: 17 months |
|
| Participants | Setting: Auckland, Christchurch and Dunedin, New Zealand Number of participants: 684 Number analysed: 684 Number lost to follow‐up: 0 Sample: community‐dwelling Age (years): mean 74.5 (SD 6.5) Sex: 73% female Inclusion criteria: ≥ 65 years old (55 years if Ma ¯ori or Pacific Islander to account for ethnic disparities in health), had experienced at least 1 fall in the previous 12 months or were considered to be at risk of falling using the Falls Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT > 1). Exclusion criteria: unable to walk independently (with or without walking aid), chronic medical condition that would limit participation in low‐ to moderate‐intensity exercise, severe cognitive limitations (score < 23 on the Telephone MMSE), participated in Tai Chi within the last year, or currently participating in an organized exercise programme aimed at improving strength and balance |
|
| Interventions | 1. Group‐based Tai Chi, 2 a week: 1‐hour class, 2 a week for 20 weeks 2. Group‐based Tai Chi, 1 a week: 1‐hour class, 1 a week for 20 weeks 3. Control: Group‐based seated gentle lower‐limb exercise, stretching, low‐level strength, and low‐level cardiovascular exercise; 1‐hour class, 1 a week for 20 weeks |
|
| Outcomes | 1. Rate of falls 2. Number of people who experienced 1 or more falls (risk of falling) |
|
| Duration of the study | 68 weeks | |
| Adherence | Adherence measured by percentage of sessions attended. 1. Group‐based Tai Chi, 2 a week: median attendance rate 72% (IQR 44 – 88%) 2. Group‐based Tai Chi, 1 a week: median attendance rate 79% (IQR 49 – 90%) 3. Group‐based seated gentle lower‐limb exercise: median attendance rate 67% (IQR 10 – 85%) |
|
| Notes | Source of funding: Accident Compensation Corporation Economic information: not reported |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "Web‐based, computer‐generated blocked random number system (generated by the study biostatistician)" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "At the end of the baseline assessment, each participant was given a sealed opaque envelope containing group allocation details and was instructed to open the envelope after leaving the assessment venue and not to discuss the assignment with any of the assessors" |
| 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: "Participants who did not return their monthly calendars had reminder telephone calls within 2 weeks, and assessors blinded to group allocation collected data related to any falls over the telephone" |
| 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 fall data |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Prespecified falls outcomes reported. Trial registration was retrospective and does not note adverse events |
| Method of ascertaining falls (recall bias) | Low risk | Quote: "Participants recorded fall incidents as they occurred on provided calendars that they returned monthly by mail" |