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

Table 2 Results of the methodological quality analysis of individual RCTs

	Sequence generation	Allocation concealment	Blinding to group assignment	Incomplete outcome data	Selective outcome reporting	Other potential sources of bias^a
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 risk^b	Low risk	High risk^a3
Petit et al. [21]	Low risk	Unclear	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	High risk^a4
Weeks et al. [22]	Unclear	Unclear	High risk^c	Low risk	Low risk	High risk^a2,a4
Adults
Vainionpaa et al. [23]	Low risk	Low risk	High risk^d	Low risk	Low risk	High risk^a3
Older Adults
Cheng et al. [13]	Low risk	Unclear	High risk^d	High risk^e	Low risk	High risk^a3
Karinkanta et al. [15]	Low risk	Low risk	High risk^d	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk
Liu-Ambrose et al. [53]	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	High risk^a2,a4
Uusi-Rasi et al. [14]	Low risk	Low risk	High risk^d	Low risk	Low risk	High risk^a3

^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).
^bA clear imbalance between withdrawals of controls and trainees in Tanner Stage 1.
^cIndividual adolescent pupils randomised rather than schools
^dNo supervised sham exercise for controls
^eNo intention-to-treat results reported

ISSN: 1741-7015