Prosperini 2013.

Methods	Single‐blinded randomised cross‐over trial. Allocation by computer‐generated random numbers in a 1:1 ratio.
Participants	n = 36 Randomised: GA = 18, GB = 18 Analysed: GA = 17, GB = 17 No significant difference between groups at baseline for demographic & clinical characteristics
Interventions	30 minutes/day, 5 days/week for 12 weeks use of Wii Fit Plus balance games of progressive difficulty, at home
Outcomes	Number of falls per group, static balance function, dynamic balance function, mobility, MS impact (physical and psychological)
Notes	GA: Group A, GB: Group B, COP Path Centre of Pressure Path, FSST: Four Step Square Test, 25‐FWT: 25 Foot Walk Test, MSIS‐29: Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale‐29, WBBS: Wii Balance Board System
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	“Patients who met all eligibility criteria underwent study assessments and were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 2 counterbalanced arms by computer‐generated random numbers. Randomization procedure was performed by an operator (LL) not involved in study measurements”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information available to permit a judgement of ‘low risk’ or ‘high risk’. This is usually the case if the method of concealment is not described or not described in sufficient detail to allow a definite judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information available to permit a judgement of ‘low risk’ or ‘high risk’
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The following outcome measures were collected at each scheduled visit (T0, T1, and T2) by 2 neurologists (LP and CG) unaware of the training order allocation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Missing outcome data balanced in numbers across intervention groups, with similar reasons for missing data across groups.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Registered trial protocol is not cited in paper so it is not possible to check against planned a‐priori analyses
Other bias	Unclear risk	No sample size calculated and inferential statistics calculated. Study may be exposed to a type II error