Skip to main content

Table 4 Risk of bias assessment of the included studies according to Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool [75]

From: Follow-up efficacy of physical exercise interventions on fall incidence and fall risk in healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study

Risk of bias

Sequence

Allocation

Blinding

Outcome

Report

Other

Notes

Ballard et al. [90]

Yes

Unclear

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Yes

Control group attended the exercise program in the first 2  weeks as a motivation.

Examiners were not blinded to groups.

Fall diaries were completed at 1-year follow-up, not on a monthly basis.

Beyer et al. [50]

Yes

Yes

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Yes

The follow-up started from the point of group assignment.

Fitzharris et al. [73]

Yes

Unclear

Unclear

Yes

Unclear

Unclear

 

Freiberger et al. [82]a,b

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unclear

 

Halvarsson et al. [94]

Yes

Yes

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Yes

Seventeen out of the 59 total had neurological and cardiovascular diseases.

Fall frequency was assessed retrospectively at the end of the follow-up, not on a monthly basis calendars.

Iliffe et al. [83]a,b

Yes

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

 

Kamide et al. [95]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

 

Karinkanta et al. [51]a,b,c

Yes

Unclear

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Unclear

 

Li et al. [89]

Yes

Unclear

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Unclear

 

Liu-Ambrose et al. [96]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unclear

 

Logan et al. [129]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

 

Logghe et al. [97]

Yes

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

 

Lord et al. [101]

Yes

Unclear

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Unclear

 

Means et al. [86]

Yes

Unclear

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Yes

Control group attended balance program without training on obstacle course.

Means et al. [98]

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

 

Morgan et al. [84]

Yes

Unclear

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Unclear

 

Salminen et al. [130]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

 

Suzuki et al. [99]

Yes

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

 

Taylor et al. [76]a,b

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unclear

The follow-up duration started from the entry point in the study to the final assessment point (i.e., the intervention duration is included in the follow-up period).

Trombetti et al. [88]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unclear

The control group was a delayed intervention control group that started the same implemented intervention during the 6 months of follow-up.

Uusi-Rasi et al. [87]

Yes

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Unclear

Unclear

 

Weerdesteyn et al. [100]

Yes

Unclear

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Unclear

Half of the intervention group was not randomly assigned.

The follow-up started from the point of group assignment.

Whitehead et al. [85]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unclear

The follow-up started from the point of group assignment.

Yamada et al. [78]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unclear

 

Yamada et al. [79]

Yes

Yes

Unclear

Yes

Yes

Unclear

 

Yamada et al. [77]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Unclear

 
  1. Sequence Was the allocation sequence adequately generated? Allocation Was allocation adequately concealed? Blinding Was knowledge of the allocated intervention adequately prevented during the study? Outcome Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed? Report Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting? Other Was the study apparently free of other problems that could put it at high risk of bias? The studies followed by the letters a or b or c mean that they include different intervention groups, and each letter resembles one intervention group