| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
RCT |
| Participants |
Setting: Arkansaw, USA
N = 338
Sample: volunteers from 17 senior citizen's centres (57% women)
Age (years): mean 73.5
Inclusion criteria: aged ≥ 65 years; able to walk at least 30 feet without assistance from others; able to follow instructions and give consent
Exclusion criteria: resident in a nursing home; acute medical problems; cognitive impairment |
| Interventions |
1. Balance rehabilitation intervention. Active stretching, postural control, endurance walking, and repetitive muscle co‐ordination exercises. Group sessions 90 min, 3 x per wk for 6 wks
2. Control: group seminars on non health‐related topics of interest to senior citizens. Same time and frequency as intervention group |
| Outcomes |
1. Rate of falls
2. Number of people falling |
| Duration of the study |
6 months |
| Notes |
|
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Randomised by coin flip |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Insufficient information to permit judgement |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
Blinding of participants and treatment personnel not mentioned in report, but unlikely. Insufficient information to make judgement on impact of lack of blinding. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
Falls and fallers |
Low risk |
Falls reported by participants who were aware of their group allocation. Assessor blind to group allocation. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Falls |
High risk |
SeeAppendix 3 for method of assessment |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Fallers |
High risk |
SeeAppendix 3 for method of assessment |
| Risk of bias in recall of falls |
Low risk |
Prospective. Recorded on pre‐printed postcards weekly with telephone calls to non correspondents to optimise compliance. |
