Weeks 2008.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Study design: RCT | |
| Participants |
Student inclusion criteria: students of sound general health, fully ambulatory, with written consent of a parent or guardian Student exclusion criteria: metabolic bone disease, endocrine disorder, or chronic renal pathology; taking medications known to affect bone; recovering from lower limb fracture or other immobilised injury; were affected by any condition not compatible with PAs likely to raise heart rate for up to 10 minutes Setting: school Age group: adolescents Gender distribution: females and males Country/Countries where trial was performed: Australia |
|
| Interventions |
Intervention: 10 minutes of directed jumping activity at the beginning of every PE class (twice/week). Activities designed to apply loads to the skeleton at high strain magnitude, frequency, and rate; included jumps, hops, tuck‐jumps, jump‐squats, stride jumps, star jumps, lunges, side lunges, and skipping. Jumps were occasionally supplemented with upper body strengthening activities, including pushups and exercises with resistive latex bands (AusBand; Ausmedic Australia) Comparator: regular PE warm‐ups and stretching directed by the usual PE teacher at the beginning of every PE class (twice/week). Activities focused on improving flexibility and general preparedness for PA without specifically loading the skeleton at higher rates than normal, including: brisk walking, light jogging, and stretching Duration of intervention: 8 months Duration of follow‐up: 8 months Number of schools: 1 Theoretical framework: — |
|
| Outcomes | BMI | |
| Study registration | — | |
| Publication details |
Language of publication: English Funding: — Publication status: peer‐reviewed journal |
|
| Stated aim for study | "The aim of the Preventing Osteoporosis With Exercise Regimes in Physical Education study was to determine the effect of a practical, evidence‐based exercise regimen (10 min of jumping activity twice/week for 8 months) on parameters of bone and muscle strength in healthy adolescent boys and girls in comparison with age‐ and sex‐matched controls" | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Comment: block randomisation using a list produced by a random number generator [author communication] |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Comment: all participants were allocated at a single point in time following recruitment, so at time of recruitment, allocation was not known |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Comment: participants not blinded |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: most of the assessment process was blinded, except dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry measures [author communication] |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Anthropometrics, Fitness | High risk | Comment: intention‐to‐treat analysis was not completed on outcomes of interest |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: no protocol published; cannot assess |