Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Home based, tailored intervention to reduce rate of falls after stroke (FAST): randomised trial.

Name: Kaimen Rigor review — Home based, tailored intervention to reduce rate of falls after stroke (FAST): randomised trial.
Item: Home based, tailored intervention to reduce rate of falls after stroke (FAST): randomised trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Alpha1

Clemson L, Scrivener K, Lannin N, Ada L, Day S, Lin I, Isbel S, Cusick A, Gardner B, Preston E, Heller G, Dean CM, FAST Study Group

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Kaimen Rigor review — 4★ (Strong), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Home based, tailored intervention to reduce rate of falls after stroke (FAST): randomised trial.”

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 15, 2026

Read alongside

Home based, tailored intervention to reduce rate of falls after stroke (FAST): randomised trial.

Clemson L, Scrivener K, Lannin N, Ada L, Day S, Lin I, Isbel S, Cusick A, Gardner B, Preston E, Heller G, Dean CM, FAST Study Group

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2025-085519

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/f4002020-46bf-4d04-a594-3d5faa38cd91" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/f4002020-46bf-4d04-a594-3d5faa38cd91/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 4★ (Strong), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Home based, tailored intervention to reduce rate of falls after stroke (FAST): randomised trial.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

d7da4ed50296c8373992b96fd5a8dbff2ef913c5074a1b407eb3a3ace7fb513d

Verify via API

Issued Aug 15, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Alpha¹ by Kaimen

Fetching the latest research

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Home based, tailored intervention to reduce rate of falls after stroke (FAST): randomised trial.

Clemson L, Scrivener K, Lannin N, Ada L, Day S, Lin I, Isbel S, Cusick A, Gardner B, Preston E, Heller G, Dean CM, FAST Study Group

Paper source

Home based, tailored intervention to reduce rate of falls after stroke (FAST): randomised trial.

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 15, 2026

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

4 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 02OverreachNone found 103AuthenticityData authenticity concerns 04DisclosureNone found 05AvailabilityNone found 06Copyedit5 minor suggestions

This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen Rigor reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and well-reported phase 3 randomized controlled trial with rigorous design, clear statistical methods, and transparent reporting. The main weakness is the lack of an explicit informed consent statement, which is a reporting gap rather than a substantive flaw. Minor copyedit issues and a few reporting details (e.g., outlier handling, assumptions verification) could be improved.

Both reviewers agreed on study type (interventional) and on most dimensions. Divergences were minor: outlier handling (R1 inadequate vs R2 adequate), assumptions verified (R1 inadequate vs R2 adequate), repository deposit (R1 inadequate vs R2 adequate), and limitations discussed (R1 adequate vs R2 inadequate). These were resolved conservatively where the paper lacked explicit detail. The statistics verification recomputed 4 tests consistently, but this is limited coverage; other statistics remain unverified.

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 4 tests: 4 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 2 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

None found

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

7 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Data authenticity concerns

1 finding · worst low

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Other integrity concernAssessed

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting gaps

None found

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites three prior randomized trials that found no effective non-drug interventions to reduce falls after stroke, and explains how the current intervention differs by integrating exercise into daily activities. The rationale is logically linked to the study objectives and hypotheses. Limitations of prior work are implicitly addressed by the design, though not explicitly detailed.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior research and providing a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

“In three randomised trials, the non-drug interventions investigated to reduce falls after stroke were not effective and involved either home modifications or exercise that was segregated from daily activities.”

Introduction ¶2Find in source

“The intervention combined exercise, home safety, and a community mobility goal, but most important is that the exercise is habit forming because it is integrated into daily activities.”

Introduction ¶2Find in source

absence[Introduction]

Limitations of prior research are not explicitly discussed as such.

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior research on falls after stroke and the lack of effective interventions, and it provides a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

“No effective intervention that prevents falls after stroke is available.”

Introduction ¶1Find in source

“The intervention combined exercise, home safety, and a community mobility goal, but most important is that the exercise is habit forming because it is integrated into daily activities.”

Introduction ¶2Find in source

Introduction ¶1Find in source

Randomization used an offsite automated service with stratification and block randomization, and allocation was concealed. Blinding of outcome assessors and statistician was described, with a rationale for not blinding participants/therapists. A priori sample size calculation was provided. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were pre-specified. Outlier handling is not explicitly described, but the analysis population (ITT) and missing data approach are defined. Controls are appropriate (usual care). Independent replication is not applicable for a single pivotal trial.

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingINADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The trial design is rigorous with adequate randomization, blinding, power analysis, and pre-specified criteria.

Evidence

“We used an offsite, independent, and automated service (Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney) to generate the sequence with stratification and block randomisation, to conceal the schedule from the recruiter, and to reveal allocation to the trial coordinators.”

MethodsFind in source

“Researchers masked to group allocation measured outcomes at baseline, at six months (end of intervention), and at 12 months in the home. Masking participants and therapists to group allocation was not possible. A statistician masked to group allocation did the statistical analysis.”

MethodsFind in source

“Assuming a 15% loss to follow-up, with a two sided level of significance of 5% and power of 80%, we needed a sample size of 185 per group to detect a 30% lower rate of falls in the experimental group than in the control group.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The trial design is rigorous with clear randomization, masking, sample size calculation, and pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

Statistical analysisFind in source

The paper reports sex, age, time since stroke, comorbidities, and other relevant characteristics in Table 1. Both sexes are included, so sex justification is not applicable. Age and health status are reported. Species/strain and housing conditions are not applicable for a human trial.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Demographic and clinical characteristics are well reported, including sex, age, and health status.

Evidence

“Mean (SD) age , years | 75 (10) | 76 (9) | 76 (11) | 79 (8) | | Female sex | 87 (47) | 82 (45) | 12 (50) | 7 (37)”

Table 1Find in source

“Mean (SD) comorbidities (Groll scale 0-18) | 4.7 (2.5) | 4.4 (2.0) | 5.1 (2.8) | 4.2 (2.4)”

Table 1Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The study reports key demographic and clinical characteristics of participants, including age, sex, and comorbidities.

Evidence

“Female sex | 87 (47) | 82 (45)”

Table 1Find in source

“Mean (SD) age , years | 75 (10) | 76 (9)”

Table 1Find in source

The study was approved by a named ethics committee (Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee) with protocol numbers. Informed consent is implied by the inclusion criteria 'capable of providing consent' and the ethics approval, though a specific consent statement is not explicitly quoted. Regulatory compliance is stated via adherence to CONSORT and the Declaration of Helsinki is not explicitly mentioned, but the ethics approval suffices.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentINADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approval and consent are adequately reported.

Evidence

“The study was approved by the Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee Human Research Ethics Committee (5201500456 and 520231547551507) and respective hospital institutional committees”

EthicsFind in source

“capable of providing consent (fewer than five errors on the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire)”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The study reports ethics approval from a named committee and includes a data availability statement, but informed consent is not explicitly described.

Evidence

EthicsFind in source

absence[Ethics statements]

Informed consent is not mentioned.

The intervention components are described in detail, including the LiFE program and the Westmead Home Safety Assessment. The statistical software (R and SPSS) is identified with versions. No antibodies, cell lines, or other biological reagents are used, so those criteria are not applicable. The intervention is a behavioral intervention, not a drug or device, so reagents_identified is not applicable.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedN/A

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The intervention is described in detail, and the statistical software is identified.

Evidence

“We used R version 4.4.2 to analyse falls data and IBM SPSS version 30 to analyse other secondary data.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“The experimental group received the FAST intervention, a home based intervention consisting of three components—a habit forming functional exercise, home fall hazard reduction, and goal directed community mobility coaching—which were tailored to their level of disability.”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

The intervention is described in detail, but the paper does not identify specific reagents or software versions for the intervention materials.

Evidence

“We used R version 4.4.2 to analyse falls data and IBM SPSS version 30 to analyse other secondary data.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

The primary analysis used negative binomial regression, and secondary analyses used ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U tests, all named. Exact p-values are reported for primary and secondary outcomes. Effect sizes are reported with 95% confidence intervals. Software is identified. Data presentation includes per-group n and dispersion measures. Mathematical plausibility checks were not performed due to continuous data and large N, but no obvious errors were noted.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedINADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-reported, with exact p-values and effect sizes with confidence intervals.

Evidence

“We analysed the between group difference in annual rate of falls by using negative binomial regression and presented it as an incidence rate ratio. We analysed the between group difference in proportion of fallers by using the χ 2 test and presented it as relative risk and risk difference.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“incidence rate ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.94; P=0.02”

AbstractFind in source

“community participation (Late Life Function and Disability Instrument disability limitation: mean difference 3% (95% CI 1% to 6%); P=0.02)”

AbstractFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described, with exact p-values and confidence intervals reported.

Evidence

“the between group difference at 12 months was an incidence rate ratio of 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.94; P=0.02)”

ResultsFind in source

“We analysed interval secondary outcomes by using analysis of variance and presented them as mean between group differences with 95% confidence intervals. We analysed ordinal secondary outcomes by using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U statistic but presented them as mean between group differences with 95% confidence intervals.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

The data availability statement indicates that the statistical analysis plan and data and analysis code files are lodged on the Sydney University eScholarship Repository, providing a concrete access route. Repository deposit is mentioned, though no DOI or accession number is given. Code sharing is implied by the statement. For patient-level data, repository deposit and accession numbers are not applicable.

Sub-criteria

code sharingADEQUATE

accession numbersN/A

repository depositINADEQUATE

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Data and code availability are adequately reported with a concrete repository.

Evidence

paraphrase[Data availability statement]

“The statistical analysis plan and the data and analysis code files using R statistical package version 4.4.2 and IBM SPSS version 30 are lodged on the Sydney University eScholarship Repository”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper provides a data availability statement with a repository link for the statistical analysis plan and data/code files.

Evidence

paraphrase[Data availability statement]

“The statistical analysis plan and the data and analysis code files using R statistical package version 4.4.2 and IBM SPSS version 30 are lodged on the Sydney University eScholarship Repository ( https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/33822.3 )”

The trial is registered with ACTRN12619001114134. The paper states it is reported according to the updated CONSORT statement 2025. All pre-specified outcomes are reported, including non-significant ones. Limitations are discussed. Conclusions are proportional to the evidence. Funding and competing interests are disclosed.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The trial is registered, reported per CONSORT, and limitations and funding are disclosed.

Evidence

“Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619001114134”

AbstractFind in source

“The study is reported in accordance with the updated CONSORT statement 2025.”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Funding and Competing interests]

“Funding: National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (project grant #1157739). Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The trial is registered, reported per CONSORT, and includes funding and COI statements, but limitations are only partially discussed.

Evidence

“Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619001114134.”

AbstractFind in source

“The study is reported in accordance with the updated CONSORT statement 2025.”

MethodsFind in source

“The main limitation of the study is the large number of therapists needed to provide intervention across multiple sites and regions.”

LimitationsFind in source

Registered (1 ID: ANZCTR). Reporting guideline cited: CONSORT.

Broken references and links

None found

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Checked 32 references by DOI: 31 verified — 1 no DOI (shown, not verified).

1 data/code link found; not probed for liveness in this run.

Copyediting

5 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 5 minor suggestions below.

5 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, clarity, typo.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The published work is robust and generally trustworthy, but an informed reader should note the missing explicit informed consent statement and the lack of explicit outlier handling and assumption checks. These are reporting gaps that could warrant a correction or clarification, but they do not undermine the main conclusions. The copyedit issues are minor and do not affect scientific integrity.

1.
HIGHethics
Add an explicit statement in the Ethics statements section describing how informed consent was obtained (e.g., written informed consent from all participants).
Informed consent is a required reporting element for human research; its absence is a reporting gap that should be corrected.
2.
HIGHreporting
In the Methods, Statistical analysis section, explicitly state how outliers were handled (e.g., none excluded) and how assumptions for statistical tests (e.g., normality) were verified.
Both reviewers flagged these as inadequately reported; explicit statements would strengthen the statistical reporting.
3.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In the Ethics statements, remove the duplicate phrase 'Human Research Ethics Committee' so it reads 'Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee'.
The duplicate phrase is a copyedit error that should be fixed for clarity.
4.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In the Abstract, Results, clarify that the mean difference of 3% is in percentage points (e.g., 'mean difference 3 percentage points').
The current phrasing is ambiguous and could be misinterpreted.
5.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In the Results, primary outcome, clarify that 'total 327' refers to the total number of falls, not participants.
The phrasing is ambiguous and could confuse readers.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Methods, Statistical analysis, clarify how mean differences were derived from Mann-Whitney U tests for ordinal outcomes.
The current description is methodologically unclear and could be questioned by reviewers.
7.
MEDIUMreporting
Expand the limitations section to include potential biases such as lack of blinding of participants/therapists and the impact of missing data due to COVID-19.
A more comprehensive limitations discussion would strengthen transparency.
8.
MEDIUMdata code
Consider providing a DOI or persistent identifier for the repository deposit in the Data Availability statement.
A DOI would enhance accessibility and citability of the data/code.
9.
LOWreporting
Add a note on how missing data were handled (e.g., complete-case analysis) in the statistical methods.
Clarifying missing data handling is important for reproducibility.
10.
LOWreporting
Provide more detail on the randomization sequence generation (e.g., block size) in the Methods.
Additional detail would improve transparency of the randomization process.
11.
LOWreporting
Include a statement on patient and public involvement, even if it was not done, to explain its absence.
This is a common reporting expectation and would address a potential reviewer comment.
12.
LOWreporting
Consider providing a link to the full statistical analysis plan in the data availability statement.
This would enhance transparency and reproducibility.

Full text (36,832 chars)Analyzed: Aug 15, 2026

Start the discussion on JRNLClub

Community discussion on jrnlclub.com

Read alongside

Home based, tailored intervention to reduce rate of falls after stroke (FAST): randomised trial.

Clemson L, Scrivener K, Lannin N, Ada L, Day S, Lin I, Isbel S, Cusick A, Gardner B, Preston E, Heller G, Dean CM, FAST Study Group

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2025-085519

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/f4002020-46bf-4d04-a594-3d5faa38cd91" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/f4002020-46bf-4d04-a594-3d5faa38cd91/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 4★ (Strong), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Home based, tailored intervention to reduce rate of falls after stroke (FAST): randomised trial.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

d7da4ed50296c8373992b96fd5a8dbff2ef913c5074a1b407eb3a3ace7fb513d

Verify via API

Issued Aug 15, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

4 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 02OverreachNone found 103AuthenticityData authenticity concerns 04DisclosureNone found 05AvailabilityNone found 06Copyedit5 minor suggestions

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 4 tests: 4 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 2 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

7 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Data authenticity concerns

1 finding · worst low

Other integrity concernAssessed

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting gaps

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Eight Dimensions8 pass

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior research and providing a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

Introduction ¶2Find in source

“The intervention combined exercise, home safety, and a community mobility goal, but most important is that the exercise is habit forming because it is integrated into daily activities.”

Introduction ¶2Find in source

absence[Introduction]

Limitations of prior research are not explicitly discussed as such.

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior research on falls after stroke and the lack of effective interventions, and it provides a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

“No effective intervention that prevents falls after stroke is available.”

Introduction ¶1Find in source

“The intervention combined exercise, home safety, and a community mobility goal, but most important is that the exercise is habit forming because it is integrated into daily activities.”

Introduction ¶2Find in source

Introduction ¶1Find in source

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingINADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The trial design is rigorous with adequate randomization, blinding, power analysis, and pre-specified criteria.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The trial design is rigorous with clear randomization, masking, sample size calculation, and pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Demographic and clinical characteristics are well reported, including sex, age, and health status.

Evidence

“Mean (SD) age , years | 75 (10) | 76 (9) | 76 (11) | 79 (8) | | Female sex | 87 (47) | 82 (45) | 12 (50) | 7 (37)”

Table 1Find in source

“Mean (SD) comorbidities (Groll scale 0-18) | 4.7 (2.5) | 4.4 (2.0) | 5.1 (2.8) | 4.2 (2.4)”

Table 1Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The study reports key demographic and clinical characteristics of participants, including age, sex, and comorbidities.

Evidence

“Female sex | 87 (47) | 82 (45)”

Table 1Find in source

“Mean (SD) age , years | 75 (10) | 76 (9)”

Table 1Find in source

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentINADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approval and consent are adequately reported.

Evidence

EthicsFind in source

“capable of providing consent (fewer than five errors on the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire)”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The study reports ethics approval from a named committee and includes a data availability statement, but informed consent is not explicitly described.

Evidence

EthicsFind in source

absence[Ethics statements]

Informed consent is not mentioned.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedN/A

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The intervention is described in detail, and the statistical software is identified.

Evidence

“We used R version 4.4.2 to analyse falls data and IBM SPSS version 30 to analyse other secondary data.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 85% conf

The intervention is described in detail, but the paper does not identify specific reagents or software versions for the intervention materials.

Evidence

“We used R version 4.4.2 to analyse falls data and IBM SPSS version 30 to analyse other secondary data.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedINADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-reported, with exact p-values and effect sizes with confidence intervals.

Evidence

Statistical analysisFind in source

“incidence rate ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.94; P=0.02”

AbstractFind in source

“community participation (Late Life Function and Disability Instrument disability limitation: mean difference 3% (95% CI 1% to 6%); P=0.02)”

AbstractFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical methods are appropriate and well-described, with exact p-values and confidence intervals reported.

Evidence

“the between group difference at 12 months was an incidence rate ratio of 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.94; P=0.02)”

ResultsFind in source

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sub-criteria

code sharingADEQUATE

accession numbersN/A

repository depositINADEQUATE

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Data and code availability are adequately reported with a concrete repository.

Evidence

paraphrase[Data availability statement]

“The statistical analysis plan and the data and analysis code files using R statistical package version 4.4.2 and IBM SPSS version 30 are lodged on the Sydney University eScholarship Repository”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper provides a data availability statement with a repository link for the statistical analysis plan and data/code files.

Evidence

paraphrase[Data availability statement]

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The trial is registered, reported per CONSORT, and limitations and funding are disclosed.

Evidence

“Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619001114134”

AbstractFind in source

“The study is reported in accordance with the updated CONSORT statement 2025.”

MethodsFind in source

paraphrase[Funding and Competing interests]

“Funding: National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (project grant #1157739). Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The trial is registered, reported per CONSORT, and includes funding and COI statements, but limitations are only partially discussed.

Evidence

“Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619001114134.”

AbstractFind in source

“The study is reported in accordance with the updated CONSORT statement 2025.”

MethodsFind in source

“The main limitation of the study is the large number of therapists needed to provide intervention across multiple sites and regions.”

LimitationsFind in source

Registered (1 ID: ANZCTR). Reporting guideline cited: CONSORT.

Broken references and links

None found

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Checked 32 references by DOI: 31 verified — 1 no DOI (shown, not verified).

1 data/code link found; not probed for liveness in this run.

Copyediting

5 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 5 minor suggestions below.

5 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, clarity, typo.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

1.
HIGHethics
Add an explicit statement in the Ethics statements section describing how informed consent was obtained (e.g., written informed consent from all participants).
Informed consent is a required reporting element for human research; its absence is a reporting gap that should be corrected.
2.
HIGHreporting
In the Methods, Statistical analysis section, explicitly state how outliers were handled (e.g., none excluded) and how assumptions for statistical tests (e.g., normality) were verified.
Both reviewers flagged these as inadequately reported; explicit statements would strengthen the statistical reporting.
3.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In the Ethics statements, remove the duplicate phrase 'Human Research Ethics Committee' so it reads 'Macquarie University Human Research Ethics Committee'.
The duplicate phrase is a copyedit error that should be fixed for clarity.
4.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In the Abstract, Results, clarify that the mean difference of 3% is in percentage points (e.g., 'mean difference 3 percentage points').
The current phrasing is ambiguous and could be misinterpreted.
5.
MEDIUMcopyedit
In the Results, primary outcome, clarify that 'total 327' refers to the total number of falls, not participants.
The phrasing is ambiguous and could confuse readers.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Methods, Statistical analysis, clarify how mean differences were derived from Mann-Whitney U tests for ordinal outcomes.
The current description is methodologically unclear and could be questioned by reviewers.
7.
MEDIUMreporting
Expand the limitations section to include potential biases such as lack of blinding of participants/therapists and the impact of missing data due to COVID-19.
A more comprehensive limitations discussion would strengthen transparency.
8.
MEDIUMdata code
Consider providing a DOI or persistent identifier for the repository deposit in the Data Availability statement.
A DOI would enhance accessibility and citability of the data/code.
9.
LOWreporting
Add a note on how missing data were handled (e.g., complete-case analysis) in the statistical methods.
Clarifying missing data handling is important for reproducibility.
10.
LOWreporting
Provide more detail on the randomization sequence generation (e.g., block size) in the Methods.
Additional detail would improve transparency of the randomization process.
11.
LOWreporting
Include a statement on patient and public involvement, even if it was not done, to explain its absence.
This is a common reporting expectation and would address a potential reviewer comment.
12.
LOWreporting
Consider providing a link to the full statistical analysis plan in the data availability statement.
This would enhance transparency and reproducibility.

Full text (36,832 chars)Analyzed: Aug 15, 2026