Gschwind 2015.

Methods	Study design: RCT Number of study arms: 2 Length of follow‐up: 6 months
Participants	Setting: Cologne, Germany; Valencia, Spain; Sydney, Australia Number of participants: 153 Number analysed: 136 Number lost to follow‐up: 17 Sample: community‐dwelling Age (years): mean 74.7 (SD 6.3) Sex: 61% female Inclusion criteria: ≥ 65 years, living in the community, able to walk 20 m without a walking aid, able to watch television ± glasses from 3 m distance, have enough space for system use (3.5 m2) Exclusion criteria: insufficient language skills to understand the study procedures, cognitive impairment, medical conditions precluding participation in a regular exercise programme (i.e. uncontrolled hypertension, severe neurological disorder, acute cancer, psychiatric disorder, acute infection)
Interventions	1. Individual balance and strength training using exergames: home programme of balance exercises (Weight‐bearing Exercise for Better Balance (WEBB) programme (www.webb.org.au) + technology exergames and feedback, 40‐minute sessions, 3 a week, and progressive strengthening exercises based on the Otago Exercise Programme, 15 ‐ 20 minute sessions, 3 a week for 16 weeks 2. Control group: no intervention
Outcomes	1. Rate of falls 2. Health‐related quality of life
Duration of the study	24 weeks
Adherence	Adherence was monitored automatically by iStopFalls system 1. Individual balance and strength training using exergames groups: used the iStopFalls system 42 times (median, IQR = 3.9) for a total duration of 11.7 hours (median, IQR = 22.0)
Notes	Source of funding: European Union's Seventh Framework Program, NHMRC Economic information: not reported Email communication regarding fall data, response received, data not included in review
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Were randomised by permuted block‐ randomisation (ratio1:1) using a unique computer‐generated random number for identification. Participants who lived in the same household were treated as one unit and randomised into the same block"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation concealment not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Participants and personnel unblinded but impact of unblinding unknown
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Falls	Low risk	Falls ascertained by the same method in both groups Quote: "Falls frequency .. monitored with monthly diaries for 6 months. Participants were contacted by phone when the diaries were not returned." "Staff performing the assessments was.. blinded to group allocation" It is likely, although not certain, that staff conducting follow‐up calls were blinded to group
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Fractures	Unclear risk	Not applicable
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Hospital admission, medical attention and adverse events	Low risk	In both groups Quote: "falls frequency and adverse events were monitored with monthly diaries for 6 months". "Staff performing the assessments was.. blinded to group allocation" It is likely, although not certain, that staff conducting follow‐up calls were blinded to group
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Health related quality of life (self report)	High risk	Participants were unblinded to group allocation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Falls and fallers	Low risk	Less than 20% of fall outcome data are missing (11%). Loss of fall data was balanced in the intervention (n = 7) and control (n = 10) groups; reason for missing data was unclear
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Fall data obtined but number of fallers not reported
Method of ascertaining falls (recall bias)	Low risk	Falls frequency and adverse events were monitored with monthly diaries for 6 months Participants were contacted by phone when the diaries were not returned