Weerdesteyn 2006.

Methods	Type of study: Part RCT Exercise group 2 and control were randomised. Exercise group 1 wasn't.
Participants	Number of participants randomised: 58 (Out of 113 recruits, the first 49 recruits went into Ex1 with the rest then being randomised :‐ 30 into Ex2 and 28 into Control) Losses: drop out = 6 before randomisation into Exercise 2 and Control 1 person in Ex2 and 2 in Control could not comply due to medical issues (2), with one declining involvement. Age: EX1: 73.7 (4.5) EX2: 73.2 (6.2) CO: 74.9 (6.5) Sex: 76.7% females in Ex2 and 67.9% females in Control Health status as defined by authors: fallers Residential status of participants: community dwellers Setting:The Netherlands Inclusion:history of at least one fall in the year prior to participation and able to walk for 15minutes without use of a walking aid Exclusion:severe cardiac, pulmonary or musculoskeletal disorders, pathologies associated with an increase fall risk, osteoporosis and the use of psychotropic drugs.
Interventions	EXERCISE GROUP (GBFT): (N=30) 1st session of a week: balance, gait and coordination training via obstacle course. Motor dual tasks involved. 2nd session of a week: walking exercises and practicing of fall techniques. CONTROL GROUP: (N=28) usual activities Duration and intensity:1.5 hours of an exercise session, twice weekly for 5 weeks Supervisor: experienced physiotherapist Supervision:group 2‐3 supervisors per group of 10 participants Setting: Rehabilitation centre
Outcomes	Timed one‐leg stance eyes open AP (mm/s) Timed one‐leg stance eyes closed AP (mm/s) Timed one‐leg stance eyes open Lateral (mm/s) Timed one‐leg stance eyes open Lateral (mm/s) Single legged stance (s) Compliance/adherence: attendance rate of 87% Adverse events:not reported
Notes	Authors provided additional data for exercise group 2
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Block randomisation with equal probability for exercise or control group
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Participants drew an envelope (from 20 sealed non‐see through envelopes per block) after completed baseline assessment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient reporting of attrition/exclusions to permit judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Other bias	Low risk	The study appears to be free of other sources of bias
Blinding (participant)	High risk	Not possible
Blinding (assessor)	High risk	Assessors not blind
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.