Kamide 2009.

Methods	Study design: RCT Number of study arms: 2 Length of follow‐up: 6 months
Participants	Setting: Kanagawa, Japan Number of participants: 57 Number analysed: 43 Number lost to follow‐up: 14 Sample: women registered at an employment agency for older people (see Notes) Age (years): mean 71 (SD 3.6) Sex: 100% female Inclusion criteria: aged ≥ 65 years; community‐dwelling; independently mobile; no restriction on physical activities Exclusion criteria: cerebrovascular, cardiopulmonary, neuromuscular, liver, or kidney disease; hyperparathyroidism; unstable diabetes mellitus or hypertension; fracture of spine or lower limbs; taking prednisolone; exercising regularly
Interventions	1. Individual balance and strength training: home‐based exercises, Theraband used for moderate‐intensity lower‐limb strength training, no home visits but monthly telephone or mail contact; performed ≥ 3 days a week for 24 weeks 2. Control: usual activities, telephone or mail contact from PT every 3 months
Outcomes	1. Number of people who experienced 1 or more falls (risk of falling)
Duration of the study	52 weeks
Adherence	Adherence measured as frequency of sessions completed 1. Individual balance and strength training group: 19 of 23 (83%) intervention participants completed > 3 a week, 21 of 23 (91%) intervention participants completed > 2 a week
Notes	Source of funding: Univers Foundation, Tokyo Economic information: not reported Employment agency providing light work or volunteer activities for older people and encouraging social activities
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The random assignment procedure was performed using random numbers generated by a computer program ..."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "The subjects were randomly assigned to either the home‐based exercise group or the control group". Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants and therapists aware of group allocation. Intervention group: Quote: "the therapist contacted each subject by telephone or mail every month to maintain their motivation." Control group: Quote: "The subjects who were assigned to the control group were instructed to continue with their usual daily activities, with no restrictions on their exercise activities. A therapist contacted them every 3 months by telephone or mail."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Falls	Unclear risk	Quote: "Functional capacity, physical function, and bone mineral density were assessed in all subjects in both groups before and after the 6‐month intervention. The staff performing the assessments were blinded to each subject's group assignment. Falls were also assessed before and after the 12‐month followup." Unclear if assessors were blinded. Assume method of fall asessment was the same in both groups
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Fractures	Unclear risk	Not applicable
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Hospital admission, medical attention and adverse events	Unclear risk	Not applicable
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Health related quality of life (self report)	Unclear risk	Not applicable
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Falls and fallers	High risk	More than 20% of fall outcome data are missing (25%).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Falls were measured, but number of falls not reported
Method of ascertaining falls (recall bias)	High risk	Quote: "Falls were also assessed before and after the 12‐month followup." No concurrent recording described. No mention of frequent telephone monitoring