Liu‐Ambrose 2008.

Methods	Study design: RCT Number of study arms: 2 Length of follow‐up: 12 months
Participants	Setting: Vancouver, Canada Number of participants: 74 Number analysed: 59 Number lost to follow‐up: 15 Sample: people attending a falls clinic after presenting at ED or to GP with a fall or fall‐related injury (41/59 completing baseline assessment) Age (years): mean 82.2 (SD 6.3) (in 59 participants completing baseline assessment) Sex: 71% female Inclusion criteria: aged ≥ 70; community‐dwelling; attending 1 of 2 falls clinics (criteria for attending clinic: history of a fall and considered at risk for further falls); able to walk at least 3 m; 1 additional non‐syncopal fall in previous year (if index fall was suspected to be due to carotid sinus syndrome); at risk of further falls (TUG test > 15 seconds or PPA z‐score of ≥ 1) Exclusion criteria: progressive neurological condition (e.g. Parkinson's disease); life expectancy < 12 months; cognitively impaired (MMSE score < 24)
Interventions	1. Individual Otago Exercise Programme: 30 minutes, 3 a week for 6 months plus walking for ≥ 2 a week 2. Control: no exercise intervention; semi‐structured interview about presenting fall and experience seeking care for the fall at ED Both groups received falls risk factor assessment and comprehensive geriatric assessment followed by 'Guideline Care' through falls clinic
Outcomes	1. Rate of falls 2. Number of people who experienced 1 or more falls (risk of falling) 3. Number of people who died
Duration of the study	52 weeks
Adherence	Adherence measured by programme completion 1. Individual Otago Exercise Programme: 7/28 (25%) completed programme ≥ 3 a week. 16/28 (57%) completed programme ≥ 2 a week. 19/28 (68%) completed programme at ≥ 1 a week
Notes	Source of funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research Economic information: Mean cost per person (intervention) CAD 14,285. Incremental cost per fall prevented/per QALY gained: CAD 247 per fall prevented Cost‐effectiveness analysis reported in Davis 2009
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The randomization sequence was computer generated (www.randomization.com)"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The Family Practice Research Coordinator at the University of British Columbia held this sequence independently and remotely"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Participants and personnel not blind to allocated group but impact of non‐blinding unclear
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Falls	High risk	Falls self‐reported and Quote: "A research assistant who was not blinded to treatment group" phoned participants at the end of each month
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 (30%)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Minimum set of expected outcomes not reported (adverse events not reported)
Method of ascertaining falls (recall bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Ascertainment of falls ... documented on monthly calendars that were returned in prepaid preaddressed envelopes at the end of each month." "A research assistant who was not blinded to treatment group but was unaware of the study hypotheses made three attempts by telephone to contact participants at the end of each month. The purpose of each phone call was to inquire about falls (both groups) ... for all participants regardless of whether the calendar was returned."