Comparison 13. Sensitivity analysis 2: exercise versus control excluding studies at a high risk of bias.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Rate of falls ‐ overall analysis	25	6757	Rate Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.78 [0.71, 0.87]
2 Rate of falls ‐ subgrouped by exercise type	25		Rate Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
2.1 Balance and functional exercises vs control	16	3184	Rate Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.69 [0.61, 0.79]
2.2 Resistance exercise vs control	0	0	Rate Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
2.3 3D exercise (Tai Chi) vs control	5	2331	Rate Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.92 [0.78, 1.09]
2.4 3D exercise (dance) vs control	1	522	Rate Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.34 [0.98, 1.83]
2.5 Walking programme vs control	1	339	Rate Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.88 [0.59, 1.30]
2.6 Multiple categories of exercise vs control	3	485	Rate Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.75 [0.60, 0.94]
3 Number of fallers ‐ overall analysis	26	6865	Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.84 [0.80, 0.89]
4 Number of fallers ‐ subgrouped by exercise type	26		Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
4.1 Balance and functional exercises vs control	16	3282	Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.83 [0.77, 0.89]
4.2 Resistance exercise vs control	0	0	Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4.3 3D exercise (Tai Chi) vs control	5	2294	Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.85 [0.77, 0.94]
4.4 3D exercise (dance) vs control	1	522	Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.35 [0.83, 2.20]
4.5 Walking programme vs control	1	339	Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.90 [0.67, 1.20]
4.6 Multiple categories of exercise vs control	4	518	Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.84 [0.69, 1.02]
5 Number of people who experienced one or more fall‐related fractures ‐ overall analysis	2	332	Risk Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.26 [0.07, 1.02]