Beling 2009.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT
Participants	Setting: California State University, Northridge, California, USA N = 23 Sample: volunteers recruited through press releases, newspaper advertisements and university website (42% women) Age (years): mean 80 (SD 5.7) Inclusion criteria: ≥ 65 years; community‐dwelling; English speaking; minimal vision and hearing deficit; access to transportation; consenting; with physician approval to participate; MMSE ≥ 24/30; 3 m TUG test ≥ 13.5 sec and/or to have ≥ 2 falls in past year and/or 1 injurious fall in the past year Exclusion criteria: cardiac conditions; musculoskeletal and/or neurological impairment that could result in falls, e.g. stroke, Parkinson's disease, lower extremity joint replacement, fracture in last year
Interventions	Both groups received multifactorial intervention (assessment and referral) prior to randomisation 1. Intervention: physiotherapist‐led, group‐based balance training 3 x per wk for 12 wks. Tailored to address risk factors identified at pre‐testing. Home assessment by physiotherapist students. Written recommendations given and discussed. Funding to assist with modifications. Measured and supplied with hip protectors. 2. Control: usual activities but offered intervention after post test
Outcomes	1. Rate of falls Other outcomes reported but not included in this review
Duration of the study	3 months
Notes	Required to attend minimum of 30 sessions
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Twelve subjects were randomly assigned to the experimental group and 11 subjects were assigned to the control group." Insufficient information to permit judgement.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "randomly assigned". Insufficient information to permit judgement.
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 and fallers	Unclear risk	No information on method of recording falls. Insufficient information to permit judgement.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Falls	High risk	SeeAppendix 3 for method of assessment
Risk of bias in recall of falls	High risk	Quote: "The number of falls that occurred in both groups during the 12 week intervention was also collected at the end of the intervention." Ascertainment relied on participant recall at the end of the 12 week intervention.