Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of the methodological quality analysis of individual RCTs

From: Targeted exercise against osteoporosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis for optimising bone strength throughout life

  Sequence generation Allocation concealment Blinding to group assignment Incomplete outcome data Selective outcome reporting Other potential sources of biasa
Children and Adolescents       
Macdonald et al. [18] Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
Macdonald et al. [19] Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk
MacKelvie et al. [20] Low risk Unclear Low risk High riskb Low risk High riska3
Petit et al. [21] Low risk Unclear Low risk Low risk Low risk High riska4
Weeks et al. [22] Unclear Unclear High riskc Low risk Low risk High riska2,a4
Adults       
Vainionpaa et al. [23] Low risk Low risk High riskd Low risk Low risk High riska3
Older Adults       
Cheng et al. [13] Low risk Unclear High riskd High riske Low risk High riska3
Karinkanta et al. [15] Low risk Low risk High riskd Low risk Low risk Low risk
Liu-Ambrose et al. [53] Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk High riska2,a4
Uusi-Rasi et al. [14] Low risk Low risk High riskd Low risk Low risk High riska3
  1. aOther potential sources of bias included 1. >5% (even though not significant) imbalance in bone baseline variables that was not adjusted for in the statistical analysis, 2. Possible inadequate exercise dose according to general exercise recommendations (<3×/week), 3. Small sample size (<100 participants) in relation to the measurement precision, and 4. Short follow-up time (<12-months).
  2. bA clear imbalance between withdrawals of controls and trainees in Tanner Stage 1.
  3. cIndividual adolescent pupils randomised rather than schools
  4. dNo supervised sham exercise for controls
  5. eNo intention-to-treat results reported