. 2018 Dec 13;4:56. doi: 10.1186/s40798-018-0170-z

Table 3.

Methodological quality of the included studies

Study

Methodological quality

Internal validity

1.1^a

1.2^a

1.3^a

1.4^a

1.5^a

2.1A^b

2.1B^b

2.1 C^b

2.1D^b

2.2A^b

2.2B^b

2.2C^b

2.2D^b

2.2E^b

2.2F^b

2.2G^b

2.2H^b

3A^b

3B^b

3C^b

3D^b

Score
(%)

Ballard et al. [90]

–

Beyer et al. [50]

–

Fitzharris et al. [73]

–

Freiberger et al. [82]a,b

–

Halvarsson et al. [94]

–

Iliffe et al. [83]a,b

–

Kamide et al. [95]

–

Karinkanta et al. [51]a,b,c

–

Li et al. [89]

–

Liu-Ambrose et al. [96]

–

Logan et al. [129]

–

Logghe et al. [97]

–

Lord et al. [101]

–

Means et al. [86]

–

Means et al. [98]

–

Morgan et al. [84]

–

Salminen et al. [130]

–

Suzuki et al. [99]

–

Taylor et al. [76]a,b

–

Trombetti et al. [88]

–

Uusi-Rasi et al. [87]

–

Weerdesteyn et al. [100]

–

Whitehead et al. [85]

–

Yamada et al. [78]

–

Yamada et al. [79]

–

Yamada et al. [77]

–

Mean ± SD

81 ± 6

Study

Methodological quality

Statistical validity

External validity

Total score (%)

4^a

5^a

Score (%)

6.1^a

6.2^a

7.1^b

7.2^b

7.3^b

8A^b

8B^b

8C^b

8D^b

8E^b

8F^b

8G^b

8H^b

Score
(%)

Ballard et al. [90]

100

–

Beyer et al. [50]

100

Fitzharris et al. [73]

100

–

Freiberger et al. [82]a,b

–

Halvarsson et al. [94]

100

–

Iliffe et al. [83]a,b

100

–

Kamide et al. 2009 [95]

–

Karinkanta et al. [51]a,b,c

–

Li et al. [89]

–

Liu-Ambrose et al. [96]

100

Logan et al. [129]

100

–

Logghe et al. [97]

–

Lord et al. [101]

–

Means et al. et al. [86]

–

Means et al. [98]

100

–

Morgan et al. [84]

–

Salminen et al. [130]

–

Suzuki et al. [99]

–

Taylor et al. 2012a,b [76]

–

Trombetti et al. [88]a,b

–

Uusi-Rasi et al. [87]

–

Weerdesteyn et al. [100]

–

Whitehead et al. [85]

–

Yamada et al. [78]

–

Yamada et al. [79]

–

Yamada et al. [77]

100

–

Mean ± SD

67 ± 23

71 ± 14

73 ± 11

Methodological quality: 1 Study design | 1.1 Number of falls | 1.2 Number of fallers | 1.3 Healthy older adults | 1.4 Follow-up ≥ 6 months | 1.5 Control group | 2 Methods | 2.1 Fall Incidence | 2.1 A fall definition | 2.1B Monthly diary |2.1C Reminder Calls| 2.1D Objective fall measure | 2.2 Intervention | 2.2A Physical exercises | 2.2B Group training under therapist supervision | 2.2C Exercise material for home training | 2.2D Controlling home visits by therapists | 2.2E Intervention duration ≥ 4 weeks | 2.2F At least twice weekly | 2.2G Session duration ≥ 15 min | 2.2H Reporting compliance | 3 Cofactors | 3A Previous fall history | 3B Reporting no exercise continuation during follow-up period | 3C Health status | 3D Cognitive status | 4 Appropriate statistical tests used | 5 Power analysis | 6 Eligibility | 6.1 Appropriate and representative participant sample | 6.2 Appropriate representation of the outcome variables | 7 Description experimental protocol | 7.1 Type of physical Intervention | 7.2 Exercise description | 7.3 Intervention duration in weeks, days and session time | 8 Description of the participant sample | 8A Age | 8B Sex | 8C Body height | 8D Body mass| 8E Activity level | 8F Health status | 8G Cognitive status | 8H Fall history. The single criteria were rated (“+” = point, “−” = no point, “/” = not included) and used to calculate the quality score for each category (i.e., internal, statistical, and external validity). The average of the three scores gives the total score. ^aA full point was assigned to each sub-category for the calculation of the score in the respective validity section ((assigned points/possible points)*100). ^bThe subcategories of the respective block were pooled to a single point (assigned points/possible points). The studies followed by the letters a or b or c mean that they include different intervention groups, and each letter resembles one intervention group