Vrantsidis 2009.

Methods	Type of study: RCT
Participants	Number of participants randomised: 62 Losses: 14 (6 in exercise and 8 in control) Age: mean 75 years Sex: 85% women Residential status of participants:community dwelling Health status as defined by authors: have at least one functional impairment or one fall in last 6 months; assumed "healthy status" Setting: Australia Inclusion: age 55 years or over; and have at least one functional impairment (based on Questions 1–11 on the Frenchay Activity Index) or have a history of one or more falls in the preceding 6 months. Able to stand unsupported for at least 1 min and walk short distances indoors (at least 5 m) without a walking aid. Exclusion: cognitive impairment (<7 on the Abbreviated Mental Test Score), inability to understand English (the program was conducted in English), and a marked mobility impairment (unable to walk at least 5 m indoors without a walking aid).
Interventions	EXERCISE GROUP (GBFT) (n = 26):Getting Grounded Gracefully© program, based on the Awareness Through Movement lessons of the Feldenkrais method, specifically target dynamic balance, postural and turning stability, and weight‐shift transfers. CONTROL GROUP (n = 29): Usual activity Duration and intensity: two 40‐ to 60‐min sessions per week over an 8‐week period (16 sessions in all). Supervisor:experienced Feldenkrais practitioner Supervision:group Setting:community clinic
Outcomes	4 step square test TUG (s) Gait speed preferred pace (m/min) Force platform Compliance/adherence: Exercise group, class attendance ranged from 9 to 16 classes (16 classes in all). Most participants (19 of 26; 73%) attended 14–16 classes. Overall attendance was 87.7%, and 40 individual class CDs were provided to participants who had missed one or more classes. Adverse events: not reported
Notes	Power analysis indicated an overall sample size of 42 per group (or 84 overall) was required.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation mentioned but Insufficient information to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomly ordered opaque envelopes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	‘As‐treated’ analysis done, drop outs existed but no detail reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Other bias	Unclear risk	The program was designed (copyright) by article’s authors
Blinding (participant)	High risk	Not possible
Blinding (assessor)	Low risk	‘Blinded to group allocation’
Were the treatment and control group comparable at entry?	Low risk	No differences reported on baseline characteristics with a potential to influence the effect of the intervention
Was the surveillance active, and of clinically appropriate duration (i.e. at least 3 months post intervention)?	High risk	Only immediately post intervention data, no follow‐up data reported.