Items

Scores

Notes

A. Was the assigned treatment adequately concealed prior to allocation?

2 = method did not allow disclosure of assignment.
1 = small but possible chance of disclosure of assignment or unclear.
0 = quasi‐randomised or open list/tables.

B. Were the outcomes of patients/participants who withdrew described and included in the analysis (intention‐to‐treat)?

2 = withdrawals well described and accounted for in analysis.
1 = withdrawals described and analysis not possible.
0 = no mention, inadequate mention, or obvious differences and no adjustment.

C. Were the outcome assessors blind to treatment status?

2 = effective action taken to blind assessors.
1 = small or moderate chance of un blinding of assessors.
0 = not mentioned, or not possible.

D. Were the participants blinded to the treatment status?

2 = effective action taken to blind assessors.
1 = small or moderate chance of un blinding of assessors.
0 = not mentioned, or not possible.

E. Were the treatment and control group comparable at entry? Specifically, were the groups comparable with respect to age, medical co‐morbidities (one or more of history of coronary artery disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes, chronic lung disease), pre‐entry physical dependency (independent vs dependent in self‐care ADL) and mental status (clinical evidence of cognitive impairment, yes or no)?

2 = good comparability of groups, or confounding adjusted for in analysis.
1 = confounding small; mentioned but not adjusted for.
0 = large potential for confounding, or not discussed.

F. Were care programmes, other than the trial options, identical?

2 = care programmes clearly identical.
1 = clear but trivial differences.
0 = not mentioned or clear and important differences in care programmes.

G. Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly defined?

2 = clearly defined.
1 = inadequately defined.
0 = not defined.

H. Were the interventions clearly defined?

2 = clearly defined interventions are applied with a standardised protocol.
1 = clearly defined interventions are applied but the application protocol is not standardised.
0 = intervention and/or application protocol are poorly or not defined.

I. Were the outcome measures used clearly defined?

2 = clearly defined measures and the method of data collection and scoring are clearly described
1 = inadequately defined measures
0 = not defined.

For our primary outcome, physical disability in terms of self‐report measures of physical function, we considered the outcome clearly defined if a validated and standardised scale was used and the method of data collection was clearly described.

Our secondary outcome measures included gait speed, muscle strength (e.g. one repetition maximum test, isokinetic and isometric dynamometry), balance (e.g. Berg Balance Scale, Functional Reach Test), aerobic capacity, and chair rise. These secondary outcomes were considered well defined if validated and standardised measures were used, and the method of data collection and scoring of any scales was clearly described.

J. Was the surveillance active and of clinically appropriate duration (i.e. at least 3 months)?

2 = active and appropriate duration (three months follow‐up or greater).
1 = active but inadequate duration (less than three months follow‐up).
0 = not active or surveillance period not defined.

Study

Concealed allocation

ITT

Assessor blind

Participants blind

Compable at entry

Identical care

Inclusion/ exclusion

Interventions defined

Outcomes defined

Ades 1996

1

0

0

0

2

2

0

2

1

Baker 2001

2

2/0

2/0

2

2

2

2

2

2

Balagopal 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

1

2

Ballor 1996

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Barrett 2002

1

2

2

0

2

2

1

2

2

Baum 2003

1

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Bean 2004

1

1

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Beneka 2005

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Bermon 1999

1

0

0

0

2

1

0

2

2

Boshuizen 2005

1

1

2

0

1

2

2

2

2

Brandon 2000

0

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Brandon 2003

1

1

0

0

2

0

1

2

2

Brochu 2002

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Bruunsgaard 2004

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

1

Buchner 1997

1

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Casaburi 2004

1

1

2

0

2

2

2

2

1

Castaneda 2001

1

1

2/0

2

2

2

2

2

2

Castaneda 2004

1

0

2

0

2

2

1

2

2

Chandler 19981

1

0

1

0

2

2

2

2

2

Charette 1991

1

0

0

0

1

2

0

2

2

Chin A Paw 2006

2

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Collier 1997

1

0

0

0

1

2

1

1

2

Damush 1999

1

0

0

1

2

2

1

1

2

de Vos 20051

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

de Vreede 2007

1

1

2

0

2

2

1

2

2

DeBeliso 2005

1

1

0

0

2

0

1

2

2

DiFrancisco 2007

1

0

0

0

1

2

1

2

2

Donald 2000

2

0

0

0

2

2

0

0

2

Earles 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Ettinger 1997

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

Fahlman 2002

1

0

0

0

1

2

1

2

2

Fatouros 2002

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Fatouros 2005

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Fiatarone 1994

1

2

2/0

1

2

2

2

2

2

Fiatarone 1997

1

0

0

1

0

2

0

2

2

Fielding 2002

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Flynn 1999

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Foley 2003

2

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Frontera 2003

1

0

0

0

2

0

1

2

2

Galvao 2005

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Hagerman 2000

1

0

0

0

2

2

0

2

2

Harris 2004

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Haykowsky 2005

1

1

2

0

0

2

1

2

2

Haykowsky 2000

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

1

2

Hennessey 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Hepple 1997

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Hiatt 1994

1

0

0

0

1

2

2

2

2

Hortobagyi 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Hruda 2003

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Hunter 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

0

2

1

Izquierdo 2004

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Jette 1996

1

0

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Jette 1999

2

0

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Jones 1994

1

0

2

0

2

2

1

2

2

Jubrias 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Judge 1994

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

Kalapotharakos 2005

1

1

2

0

2

2

1

2

2

Kallinen 2002

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Katznelson 2006

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Kongsgaard 2004

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Krebs 2007

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

Lamoureux 2003

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Latham 2001

2

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Latham 2003

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

Liu‐Ambrose 2005

1

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Macaluso 2003

1

2

0

0

0

2

1

2

2

Madden 2006

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Maiorana 1997

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

1

Malliou 2003

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Mangione 2005

1

1

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Manini 2005

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Maurer 1999

1

0

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

McCartney 1995

1

0

0

1

2

2

2

2

1

McGuigan 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

1

McMurdo 1995

2

0

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

Mihalko 1996

1

0

0

1

1

2

0

1

1

Mikesky 2006

1

2

2

0

2

2

1

2

2

Miller 2006

1

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Miszko 2003

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Moreland 2001

2

2

2

1

2

2

0

0

0

Nelson 1994

1

2

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Newnham 1995

1

0

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

Nichols 1993

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

1

Ouellette 2004

1

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Parkhouse 2000

1

0

0

0

1

2

2

1

1

Perrig‐Chiello 1998

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

Pollock 1991

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Pu 2001

1

2

2/0

2

2

2

2

2

2

Rall 1996

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Reeves 2004

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Rhodes 2000

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

1

Schilke 1996

1

0

0

0

2

2

0

1

2

Schlicht 1999

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

1

Segal 2003

1

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Selig 2004

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Seynnes 2004

1

1

0

2

2

2

2

2

2

Simons 2006

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Simoneau 2006

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Simpson 1992

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

1

1

Sims 2006

2

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

Singh 1997

1

0

2/0

1

2

2

2

2

2

Singh 2005

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Sipila 1996

1

0

0

0

1

2

1

2

2

Skelton 1995

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Skelton 1996

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

1

Sousa 2005

1

0

0

0

2

0

1

2

2

Suetta 2004

1

1

1

0

2

2

2

2

2

Sullivan 2005

2

2

2

0/2

2

2

2

2

2

Symons 2005

1

1

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Taaffe 1996

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Taaffe 1999

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Thielman 2004

1

0

0

0

1

2

1

2

2

Topp 1993

1

0

0

1

2

2

1

2

2

Topp 1996

1

0

0

1

2

2

1

2

2

Topp 2002

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Topp 2005

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Tracy 2004

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Tsutsumi 1997

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Tyni‐Lenne 2001

1

0

0

0

2

1

2

1

2

Vincent 2002

1

0

0

0

2

2

1

2

2

Westhoff 2000

1

0

2

0

2

2

1

2

2

Wieser 2007

1

1

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Wood 2001

1

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

Study

Outcome Measure

Treatment Group

Control Group

Baum 2003

Physical performance test at 6 month. Mean = baseline score + change score. SD was not reported.

9.2

8.1

Buchner 1997

mean change in number of independent IADL's

mean 0.1 (SD 0.7)

mean 0.2 (SD 0.7)

Donald 2000

Barthel Index (actual data not in paper)

no significant difference

Fiatarone 1994

ankle activity monitors (counts/day)

mean change 3412 (SD 1700)

mean change ‐1230 (SD 1670)

Fiatarone 1997

overall self‐reported activity level (measure not specified)

significant improvement (p<0.05) in exercise group

NR

Fielding 2002

SF‐36‐PF

No significant differences between high intensity and low intensity groups

Jette 1996

SF‐36 ‐ PF (actual data not reported)

no significant difference between groups (data not reported)

Kongsgaard 2004

three ADLs of a questionnaire developed by the Danish Institute of Clinical Epidemiology

Actual data not reported. The author stated that the self‐reported ADL level was significantly higher in the Ex group than in the control group

Krebs 2007

SF‐36. 7 people (2 in PRT, 5 in Functional training) reported improvement in the SF‐36 items

Maiorana 1997

Physical Activity Questionnaire (no reference) self report

mean 209.8 (SD 142.9) kJ/kg

mean 250.1 (SD 225) kJ/kg

Maurer 1999

SF‐36 PF (no SD/SE reported)

mean 50.3

mean 49.2

Maurer 1999

WOMAC section C (no SD/SE reported)

464.4

606.6

Maurer 1999

Aims Mobility (no SD/SE reported)

1.28

1.21

McMurdo 1995

Barthel Index (medians reported)

median change 0 (range ‐1 to 2)

median change control 0 (range ‐1 to 1)

Mihalko 1996

adapted version of Lawton and Brody's IADL scale (higher = better, not pooled because study was cluster randomised)

mean 105 (SD 12)

mean 68 (SD 25)

Mikesky 2006

SF‐36 physical function at 30 month (the intervention was 1 ‐ year)

n =81, mean = 65.37 (SD = 25.05)

n = 79, mean = 63.88 (SD = 25.48)

Nichols 1993

Blair Seven‐day recall Caloric Expenditure (KCalories)

not significantly altered

not significantly altered

Schilke 1996

AIMS mobility score (actual data not reported)

"no significant differences between or within groups"

Singh 1997

IADL (Lawton Brody Scale)

mean 23.4 (SD 0.4)

mean 23.9 (SD 0.1)

Skelton 1996

Human Activity Profile ‐ (only reported training groups % change and the P‐value of the change)

3.9% change3.9% change

NR

Skelton 1996

Human Activity Profile ‐ Max Activity Score

0% change

NR

Skelton 1995

Human Activity Profile

no difference from baseline

no difference from baseline

Thielman 2004

Rivermead Motor Assessment

Significant improvement was found for people in the control group with low‐level function

Tyni‐Lenne 2001

Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (lower score = better QOL, medians reported)

median 19 (range 0‐61)

median 44 (range 3‐103)

Study

Fall Statistic

PRT

Control

Buchner 1997

1) Cox regression analysis, time to first fall, 0.53, 95% CI 0.3‐0.91 for exercise group (including endurance exercise groups)

2) proportion of people who fell in one year

all exercise groups: 42%

60%

3) fall rate (falls/year)

all exercise: 0.81 falls/year

0.49 falls/year

Donald 2000

1) number of falls

7 (n = 32)

4 (n = 27)

2) number of people who fell

6 (n = 32)

2 (n = 27)

* Fiatarone 1994

1) average falls/subject

2.32

2.77

2) covariance adjusted treatment incidence ratio (PRT vs control)

0.95 (95% CI 0.64, 1.41)

Fiatarone 1997

falls

no difference between groups (no data provided)

* Judge 1994

1) Average falls/subject

0.82

1.22

2) Co‐variate adjusted treatment incidence ratio (PRT vs control)

0.61 (95%CI 0.34,1.09)

* Buchner 1997

1) Average falls/subject

0.68

1.6

2) Co‐variate adjusted treatment incidence ratio (PRT vs control)

0.91 (95%CI 0.48,1.74)

Krebs 2007

1 in the PRT group sustained an unrelated fall halfway through the 6‐week intervention, resulting in injury of her dominate shoulder. Exercise was modified for her.

1

0

Latham 2001

total falls

164

149

Latham 2003

1) number of people who fell

60

64

2) fall‐rate, person years

1.02

1.07

Liu‐Ambrose 2005

the frequency of falls (excluded falls occurred in exercise classes)

18 (1 subject fell 7 times)

0

Mangione 2005

Reported the number of participants fell during post‐training examination (n = 1 ‐ group was not reported)

Miszko 2003

Report number of people

5

1

Singh 2005

Numbers per person, no statistical difference between groups

.15 (.37)

0

Study

Any Comment re: AE

AE Occurred (y/n/nr)

Description

Dropout Pathologies

Pain

Medical Care

Deaths

Ades 1996

No

None reported

Baker 2001

Yes

No

NR

Yes, 2 in treatment group (neck arthritis, prior back injury), 2 in control (illness, psoriatic arthritis)

Treatment group decreased in WOMAC, SF‐36 BP no change

NR

Balagopal 2001

No

NR

Ballor 1996

No

NR

Barrett 2002

Yes

Yes

2 in PRT group, aggravation of OA

2 in PRT group, aggravation of OA

Baum 2003

Yes

Yes

The number of illness was not reported. 13% of repeated measurements after baseline were missing because of death or patient inability to perform the test because of acute illness.

1 in the PRT group

Bean 2004

Yes

no

No significant adverse events occurred

Beneka 2005

No

NR

Bermon 1999

No

No

Boshuizen 2005

Yes

yes

9 dropout due to illness of participant or partner

4 reported pain during or after the exercise

1 in control

Brandon 2000

No

NR

NR

Brandon 2003

Yes

8 members of exercise group had BP raised to over 200 mmHg systolic or 100 mmHg diastolic at some point during the exercises during 24 months; and had to stop exercising that day

Participant's disease (diabetics) got worse; specific number was not reported

Brochu 2002

Yes

Yes

2 experienced occasional significant exacerbation of arthritic conditions during the training. 1 experienced significant dizziness in a supine position.

Yes, 3 due to medical problems that are not related to the training

2 individuals experienced occasional significant exacerbation of arthritic conditions during the training

NR

NR

Bruunsgaard 2004

No

NR

Buchner 1997

Yes

Yes

6 Injuries in strength training or in strength/endurance training group (not reported separately, n = 50)

Not described

no significant change in BP of SF‐36

For all exercise groups (i.e. including endurance exercise groups): stable outpatient visits in exercise group/ control increased, no difference in hospitalisation rates

Casaburi 2004

Yes

No

5 (group?)‐non protocol related health problems

NR

Castaneda 2001

Yes

No

No

Castaneda 2004

Yes

Yes

The authors did not report the number and group of the dropouts. The statement is "reasons for early termination of the study included loss of greater than 20% of initial body weight, need for dialysis therapy or transplantation, development of a serious condition requiring hospitalization or precluding exercise and signs of malnutrition"

Chandler 1998

No

9 drop‐outs due to illness, 1 due to increased hip pain, 1 refused further strength testing (not given by group)

NR

NR

Charette 1991

No

1 discomfort after initial strength testing, 3 intercurrent illness not related to training

NR

NR

Chin A Paw 2006

Yes

Yes

None withdrew because of adverse effects

9 illness in PRT; 9 illness in functional training group; 10 illness in combined training group; 6 illness in control group

1 in PRT; 4 in functional training; 1 in combined training; 2 in control group

Collier 1997

No

No

Damush 1999

No

6 exercise drop‐outs due to illness

de Vos 2005

Yes

Yes

20 AEs reported in 17 participants. 16 were related to strength testing and 4 were related to power training. 8 were in high intensity group, 7 in medium, 4 in low, and 1 in control. AEs included minor strains, tendonities, and exacerbation of osteoarthritis.

4 (1 in each group) dropout‐joint pain
1 inguinal hernia in medium intensity group. 1 medical reason in low intensity group

Joint pain (see dropout pathologies)

de Vreede 2007

Yes

Yes

PRT: 1 had muscle strained. 10 reported muscle pain, 5 osteoarthritic joint pain, 3 prosthetic joint pain, and 4 lower back pain

PRT group: 1 hip fracture, 1 pneumonia, & 1 eye operation. Control: 1 wrist fracture

PRT: 10 reported muscle pain, 5 osteoarthritic joint pain, 3 prosthetic joint pain, and 4 lower back pain

DeBeliso 2005

Yes

no

no injuries occurred during the training

DiFrancisco 2007

Yes

No

Occasionally complaints of muscle soreness for 2 days after exercise, but it did not affect participants' daily routine or training

Donald 2000

No

not clear

Earles 2001

Yes (a priori outcome)

Yes

4 reported discomfort, 2 stopped program ‐ 1 due to back pain, 1 due to lumbar disc herniation, possibly due to study intervention

Yes

Ettinger 1997

Yes

Yes

PRT: 2 falls, one weight dropped on foot; Aerobic: 2 falls; Control: 1 sudden death (defined AE as death or injury requiring medical care)

NR

less for PRT group vs control

NR

NR

Fahlman 2002

No

NR

Fatouros 2002

No

NR

Fatouros 2005

Yes

Yes

3 men stopped within the 1st week due to injury

Fiatarone 1997

No

1 exercise drop‐out due to increased musculoskeletal pain

NR

no difference in health care visits between groups

NR

Fiatarone 1994

Yes

Yes

PRT: 2 reports of joint pain, program was altered No control info No cardiovascular events

2 exercise drop outs, 1 due to musculoskeletal pain, 1 due to pneumonia

not measured

NR

0 PRT and 1 control

Fielding 2002

Yes

yes

see the dropout pathologies

4 (2 in each group) discontinued secondary to exacerbation of preexist OA. 1 in the high velocity group withdrew secondary to recurrence of chronic plantar fasciicis

Flynn 1999

No

NR

NR

NR

NR

Foley 2003

Yes

Yes

Gym‐based exercise group: 2 had increased pain and 1 had increased blood pressure. 1 ‐Dr. advised to cease program

Gym‐based exercise group: 2 with increased pain, 1 with unrelated surgery, 1 with increased blood pressure, and 1 had joint replacement surgery. Control group: 2 with joint replacement surgery and 1 with illness.

2 reported increased pain the gym‐based exercise group.

Frontera 2003

No

NR

Galvao 2005

Yes

No

1 in 1‐set group withdrew due to illness, 1 due to injury sustained during part‐time work, and 1 due to aggravation of a preexisting hip injury

Hagerman 2000

No

3 PRT and 1 control withdrew because of minor injuries or previous medical problems exacerbated by testing/training

"no complaints of excess or intolerable muscle soreness or fatigue"

NR

NR

Harris 2004

Yes

No

Haykowsky 2005

Yes

Yes

1 in PRT withdrew because of shoulder discomfort and migraines. 1 in the combination training suffered a lower extremity injury not related to the study

Haykowsky 2000

Yes

No (completed without complications)

NR

Hennessey 2001

No

NR

Hepple 1997

No

No

Hiatt 1994

No

No

Hortobagyi 2001

No (not identified as such)

Yes

Pain and bruising of shoulder from machine ‐ dropped out

Yes

Yes

NR

NR

Hruda 2003

Yes

Yes?

5 (2 in the PRT group and 3 in the control group) dropped out due to health reasons

Hunter 2001

No

NR

Izquierdo 2004

No

NR

Jette 1996

No (not identified as such)

Yes ‐ 2 drop‐outs because of the exercises, 1 due to back pain, 1 due to shortness of breath during exercise,

Jette 1999

Yes

No

Reasons not described

NR, but fatigue significantly worse in exercise group

NR

NR

Jones 1994

Yes

No

NR

Jubrias 2001

Yes

No

NR

Judge 1994

Yes (a priori outcome of study)

Yes

10/55 people in RT or combined balance and RT developed musculoskeletal complaints, (specific details given), only 1 complaint in balance group, no control report, no serious injuries in any group

NR

NR

Kalapotharakos 2005

NR

NR

Kallinen 2002

Yes

Yes

1‐PRT, died of myocardial infarction at 8 weeks; 1‐PRT, unstable angina at 4 weeks; 1 in PRT, began to have occasional angina and dyspnoea at 8 weeks; 1‐endurance, brainstem infarction at week 9, 1‐endurance, abnormal aortic aneurysm happened after the program

See the description

1 in PRT, died of myocardial infarction

Katznelson 2006

Yes

Yes

5 were due to events unrelated to study drug, including bruised ribs, need for knee replacement, angina prior to the baseline visit, nausea during the first week of the study, and excessive i e commitments. Another subject in the placebo arm withdrew because of depression.

Kerr 2001

No

Yes ‐ 3 in FITNESS group, including wrist and back injury

Kongsgaard 2004

No

NR

Krebs 2007

Yes

Yes

1 in the PRT group sustained an unrelated fall halfway through the 6‐week intervention, resulting in injury of her dominate shoulder. Exercise was modified for her.

Lamoureux 2003

No

NR

Latham 2001

Yes

No

No

Latham 2003

Yes (a priori outcome)

Yes

18 musculoskeletal adverse events in PRT group vs 5 in control group

No

6 in PRT versus 8 in control

Liu‐Ambrose 2005

Yes

Yes

10 in PRT group and 2 in stretching control group had minor musculoskeletal complains but resolved or diminished within 3 weeks

Yes, 1 in PRT and 1 in control drop out due to illness

Macaluso 2003

Yes

Yes

1 back pain and 1 spur on the heel

1 back pain and 1 spur on the heel

1 back pain

Madden 2006

No

NR

Maiorana 1997

Yes (safety an aim of study)

Yes

In ex group: MI (before exercises began),1 vasovagal episode, 1 musculoskeletal pain. Control: 2 people stop testing because of aggravation of psoriatic arthritis(1) and atrial fibrilation (1)

Yes, as reported

NR

NR ‐ ischaemic symptoms/ECG changes during training

Malliou 2003

No

NR

Mangione 2005

Yes

Yes

several participants reported muscle soreness or fatigue in the PRT group. 1 fell during post‐training examination, 4 in the PRT were hospitalized

in the PRT group, 1‐illness (progressive neuromuscular disorder), 4 were hospitalized.

1 in aerobic training group was unable to perform exercise at recommended intensity level

2 (among those who were hospitalized) in the PRT group

Manini 2005

Yes

Yes

11 were excluded from the steadiness experiment because of discomfort from knee OA during the testing protocol. 14 dropout for a variety of medical personal reasons

11 were excluded from the steadiness experiment because of discomfort from knee OA during the testing protocol. 14 others dropped out for a variety of medical and personal reasons.

Maurer 1999

Yes

No

Yes, 4 drop‐outs due to increased pain "but neither subjects nor investigators attributed pain to the treatment"

WOMAC pain, 143.8 in PRT vs 167.1 control

NR

NR

McCartney 1995

Yes

No

9 exercise drop‐outs due to "illness", 3 controls due to medical problems. Stated "no injuries as a result of training"

McGuigan 2001

No

NR

McMurdo 1995

Yes

No

see hosp admissions

3 hospital admissions in PRT, 2 in control, 3 in home mobility ‐ reported not related to exercise

2 in home mobility group, no others ‐ not related to exercise

Mihalko 1996

No

NR

Mikesky 2006

Yes

Yes

1 discontinued in the PRT group because of increased knee pain

1 discontinued in the PRT group because of increased knee pain

1 discontinued in the PRT group because of increased knee pain

Miller 2006

No

NR

Discharge destination ‐ on discharge from acute care, 52 participants were discharged to a rehabilitation programme, 12 were transferred to a community hospital, 16 were discharged to higher level care and 20 returned directly to their pre‐injury admission accommodation.

2 in PRT, 1 in attention control

Miszko 2003

Yes

Yes

6 women fell (5 in PRT, 1 in control)

some (the number is not specified) due to personal medical reasons or injuries

Moreland 2001

Yes (a priori outcome)

Yes

yes to pain or stiffness = 14 in PRT vs 8 in control; other adverse: 8 in PRT vs 3 in control

5 withdrew due to medical complications in PRT vs 3 in control

Nelson 1994

Yes

Yes

7/20 in PRT group experienced transient musculoskeletal pain; 3 musculoskeletal injuries (2 fractures and 1 sprain) in the control group

No ‐ MI in PRT group occurred while patient was on vacation

Newnham 1995

No

No

3 in each group

Nichols 1993

Yes (safety a priori objective)

Yes

control subject contused sternum during baseline testing, mild to moderate delayed onset muscle soreness

PRT ‐ 1 injury unrelated to program

Ouellette 2004

Yes

Yes, 4 events

1 in the PRT group was withdrawn after coronary artery stent placement unrelated to study participation. 2 subjects did not undergo week‐12 strength testing due to recurrence of an inguinal hernia (PRT group) and ECG abnormalities (control group). A fourth subject experienced anginal symptoms consistent with coronary artery disease but returned to the study after medical clearance.

Please see the description

Parkhouse 2000

No

NR

Pollock 1991

Yes (a‐priori outcome, well‐defined)

Yes

11/57 subjects sustained an injury during 1RM testing; 2/23 sustained an injury during training. In aerobic group, no injuries during testing but 9/21 had an injury during training

NR by group

Pu 2001

Yes

Yes

1 control patient developed trochanteric bursitis from 1RM testing, 4 people had mild musculoskeletal soreness, no cardiac complications, deaths or hospitalisations occurred

No

Rall 1996

Yes

No

Reeves 2004

No

NR

Rhodes 2000

No

NR

Sartario 2001

No

NR

Schilke 1996

No

No

decreased in OASI, no difference between groups on AIMS

Schlicht 1999

Yes

No

No

Segal 2003

No

NR

Selig 2004

Yes

yes

1 illness (noncardiac) and 1 died at home in the exercise group

1 in exercise group

Seynnes 2004

Yes

No

No injuries, medical complications, or study‐related AE

3 dropouts because of medical reasons not related to the study

Simons 2006

Yes

NR

2 dropouts for non‐study related illnesses

Simoneau 2006

No

NR

Simpson 1992

No

No

Sims 2006

No

No

1 acquired a health problem that prohibited from driving

Singh 1997

Yes (a priori outcome)

No

No

weeks of pain reported‐: mean 5.4 (SD=0.7) in PRT, mean 5.6 (SD 0.7) in control

health prof visits mean 2.1 (SD 0.4) for PRT; mean 2.0 (SD 0.5) for control; hospital stays mean 0.24 (SD 0.2) for PRT, mean 0.53 (SD 0.4) for control

Singh 2005

Yes

Yes

visits to a health professional, minor illness, pain, injuries requiring training adjustment, hospital days, falls

2 drop out in low intensity group due to pain. I in the control due to hospitalisation

Muscular pain (number of weeks reported per person): High intensity group‐4.1 (2.7); low intensity group‐2.9 (2.6); control group‐3.6 (2.5)
Chest pain (number of weeks reported per person): High intensity group‐ 0.9 (1.9); low‐intensity group‐0.5 (0.9);control group‐.5 (0.8)

Visits to a health professional over the study (numbers per person): high intensity group ‐ 2 (2); low intensity group ‐ 2 (1.8); controls ‐ 5 (1.8)

Sipila 1996

No

3 drop‐outs due to illness "not related to exercise"

Skelton 1995

Yes

No

4 exercise and control participants dropped out because of ill‐health "not related to exercise"

Skelton 1996

Yes

yes

patient fainted due to an arythmia during exercise

NR

Sousa 2005

No

NR

Suetta 2004

yes

No

2 became ill (1 in PRT) for reasons unrelated to the study

Sullivan 2005

Yes

Yes

7 withdrew, developed an exacerbation of an underlying medical problem

7 withdrew, developed an exacerbation of an underlying medical problem

Symons 2005

Yes

Yes

5 knee discomfort; 1 bruising

5 knee discomfort; 1 bruising

Taaffe 1996

No

5 drop‐outs from exercise groups for medical problems "not related to the exercise program"

Taaffe 1999

No

NR

Topp 1993

No

1 exercise drop‐out due to worsening emphysema, 1 due to a stroke

Topp 1996

No

NR

Topp 2002

No

NR

Topp 2005

No

NR

Tracy 2004

No

NR

Tsutsumi 1997

No

NR

Tyni‐Lenne 2001

Yes

Maybe

increased oedema in exercise patient

No

Vincent 2002

Yes

Yes

6 participants stopped exercise for 6 weeks due to hip/knee pain

few (the number is not specified) dropped out for surgery/injury not related to the study protocol.

Westhoff 2000

Yes (asked about complaints during exercise)

Yes

increased knee pain in person with OA, 1 person had pain from elastic band

2 drop outs because of medica problems (1 had increased epileptic attacks, 1 was often ill)

Wieser 2007

No

NR

Wood 2001

No

NR

stated none of the dropouts left the program as a result of adverse responses to treatment ‐ not information about adverse events overall

No