Park 2008.

Methods	Study design: RCT Number of study arms: 2 Length of follow‐up: 11 months
Participants	Setting: Korea Number of participants: 50 Number analysed: 45 Number lost to follow‐up: 5 Sample: Community‐dwelling participants in a community learning centre for seniors and senior members of local clubs Age (years): mean 68.35 (SD 3.47) Sex: 100% female Inclusion criteria: community‐dwelling (e.g. in a private dwelling, apartment, residential facility); ambulatory (with or without an aid); competent to give consent; residents of Busan, Korea; aged 65 years Exclusion criteria: < 5 years after menopause; history of chronic disease that might influence BMD, physical activity and balance ability; history of ovariectomy or diseases known to affect bone metabolism (e.g. cancer, renal disease, rheumatoid arthritis); current medication with bisphosphonate, oestrogens, or other hormonal preparations; weigh > 130% ideal body weight; other contraindications to participating in a regular exercise programme; already doing moderate or hard exercise for more than 7 hours a week
Interventions	1. Exercise group: Stretching for 9 minutes, strength training for 10 minutes followed by 23 minutes of weight‐bearing exercise at an intensity above 65 – 75% of the maximal heart rate, and 18 minutes of balance and posture correction training. The programme was conducted 3 times a week for 48 weeks 2. Control group: retained their sedentary lifestyle participation in physical exercise
Outcomes	1. Number of people who experienced 1 or more falls (risk of falling)
Duration of the study	48 weeks
Adherence	Not reported
Notes	Source of funding: Korea Science and Engineering Foundation 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: "Randomly assigned (by a computer generated program)"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Concealment not specified
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Participants and personnel implementing the intervention not blinded to allocated group, but impact of non‐blinding unclear
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Falls	Unclear risk	Blinding not specified
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	Low risk	Less than 20% of fall data were missing (10%). Missing data were balanced in intervention (n = 3) and control (n = 2) groups. The reason for missing data was unclear
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Falls were measured, but number of falls was not reported. Adverse events were not reported
Method of ascertaining falls (recall bias)	High risk	Retrospective. Participants were asked "Did you have any falls during the past one year? What was the reason for the fall?"