Liston 2014.

Methods	Study design: RCT Number of study arms: 2 Length of follow‐up: 6 months
Participants	Setting: London, UK Number of participants: 21 Number analysed: 15 Number lost to follow‐up: 6 Sample: Secondary care‐based falls clinic Age (mean): Otago Exercise Programme + multisensory mean 77.8 years; Otago Exercise Programme + stretching mean 76.7 years Sex: 85% female Inclusion criteria: ≥ 65 years, ≥ 2 non‐syncopal falls during the previous 12 months, no previous diagnosis of vestibular dysfunction, referred after multifactorial assessment for the locally‐provided ‘routine’ modified Otago Exercise Programme classes Exclusion criteria: where falls were considered by the attending physician as due to acute illness without significant underlying instability, medication side effects, or musculoskeletal or neurologic disease significantly affecting postural stability
Interventions	Randomised into 3 groups: 2 intervention groups (1 group‐based modified Otago Exercise Programme plus individual, partiall‐supervised multisensory balance training, and 1 group‐based modified Otago Exercise Programme plus individual, partially‐supervised flexibility training) and 1 control group. Only the 2 intervention groups were included in this review 1. Group‐based modified Otago Exercise Programme plus individual, partially‐supervised multisensory balance training: 1‐hour class, 2 a week, + 45‐minute supervised home sessions providing additional customised multisensory balance exercises for 8 weeks 2. Group‐based modified Otago Exercise Programme plus individual, partially‐supervised flexibility training: 1‐hour class, 2 a week, + 45‐minute supervised home stretching programme for 8 weeks
Outcomes	1. Rate of falls
Duration of the study	24 weeks
Adherence	Not reported
Notes	Source of funding: King’s College London PhD studentship Economic information: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computerised random‐number generator
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details provided
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	Unclear risk	Quote: "Outcome measures were assessed at baseline, four and eight weeks (end of treatment), and were performed by a rater blinded to intervention group….. Six‐months postintervention, a telephone follow‐up recorded retrospective falls history". Unclear if falls were collected by an assessor blinded to treatment 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	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 (29%)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Falls were measured, but number of fallers was not reported. Adverse events were not reported
Method of ascertaining falls (recall bias)	High risk	Quote: "Six‐months postintervention, a telephone follow‐up recorded retrospective falls history...for the previous six‐months"