Joseph 1999.
| Methods | Parallel randomised controlled clinical trial | |
| Participants |
Inclusion criteria: moderately overweight older men and women (aged 54 to 71 years; BMI 26 to 36 kg/m2) who were not actively involved in any physical training volunteered to participate in this 13‐week study Exclusion criteria: included populations with any metabolic or cardiac abnormalities. When this study was performed, the 1979 recommendations of the National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG) 21 were used to exclude diabetics at screening. Populations with fasting plasma glucose greater than 7.77 mmol/L or 2‐hour OGTT plasma glucose > 11.1 mmol/L and one additional 0 to 120‐minute plasma glucose sample > 11.1 mmol/L were deemed diabetic and were excluded from the study Diagnostic criteria: according to the criteria of The National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG) |
|
| Interventions |
Number of study centres: 1 Treatment before study: not stated Titration period: not stated RT consisted of 12 weeks of progressive RT twice weekly with a minimum of days, rest between training sessions |
|
| Outcomes | Outcomes reported in abstract of publication: weight, body fat, fat mass, fat free mass, basal plasma glucose or insulin levels, glycosylated haemoglobin, triglycerides, total cholesterol, LDL‐C, HDL‐C | |
| Study details |
Run‐in period: 13 weeks Study terminated before regular end: no |
|
| Publication details |
Language of publication: English Non‐commercial funding: Supported by National Institutes of Health Grants No. 1‐R29‐AG13409 and RO1‐AG11811, National Institute on Aging Grant No. T32‐AG00048, an independent monetary gift from Nutrition 21, San Diego, CA, and General Clinical Research Center Grant No. MO1‐RR10732. Publication status: peer review journal |
|
| Stated aim for study | Quote: "To assess the effect of 12 weeks of resistance training (RT) with or without chromium picolinate (CrP) supplementation on glucose tolerance in moderately overweight older men and women" | |
| Notes | ‐ | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Comment: randomised; computer‐generated randomisation list |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Comment: hospital pharmacy |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Objective outcomes | Low risk | Quote: "... a double‐blind fashion, all capsules, including placebo, were furnished by our hospital pharmacy and were indistinguishable from each other. Neither the researchers nor the patients knew into which group they had been randomised" |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Subjective outcomes | Low risk | Comment: no subjective outcomes |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes | Low risk | Quote: "All capsules, including placebo, were furnished by our hospital pharmacy and were indistinguishable from each other. Neither the researchers nor the patients knew into which group they had been randomized. Independent pharmacists dispensed either chromium capsules or placebo in numbered containers according to a computer‐generated randomization list. No restrictions were used" |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes | Low risk | Comment: no subjective outcomes |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Objective outcomes | Low risk | Comment: no data missing |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Subjective outcomes | Low risk | Comment: no subjective outcomes |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Comment: all of the outcomes listed in the methods section were reported as results |
| Other bias | Low risk | Comment: no other details given to assess whether an important risk of bias exists |