Conroy 2010.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT (multicentre)
Participants	Setting: Nottingham and Derbyshire, United Kingdom N = 364 Sample: community‐dwelling people registered with participating GPs (N = 8) (60% women) Age (years): mean 78.6 (SD 5.7), range 70 to 101 Inclusion criteria: > 70 years; identified as being at high risk of falling by a postal screening questionnaire Exclusion criteria: living in care home; receiving end of life care; already receiving a falls prevention programme; unwilling or unable to attend falls prevention programme; unable to provide informed consent
Interventions	1. Screening questionnaire, information leaflets, and invitation to attend the day hospital for multifactorial assessment and any subsequent intervention 2. Control: screening questionnaire, information leaflets, and usual care from primary care service until outcome data collected, then offered day‐hospital intervention
Outcomes	1. Rate of falls 2. Number of people falling 3. Number sustaining a fracture
Duration of the study	1 year
Notes	Cost‐effectiveness analysis reported in Irvine 2010
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The randomisation list was computer generated using a random block size to maximise allocation concealment"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "participants were allocated into the intervention or control arm by research assistants using an internet based randomization service"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "Owing to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind participants or researchers to allocation" but impact of non‐blinding unclear.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Falls and fallers	Low risk	Outcome assessor stated to be blinded. Quote: "Participants will be contacted via telephone by the "blinded" assessor at the end of each month to encourage return of the diary." (protocol paper)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Fractures	Unclear risk	Not completely clear that fractures were recorded in diaries in the same way as falls but seems to be the case. Quote: "Participants will be asked to record falls in the diary, along with the outcome (saw GP, phoned ambulance, sent to hospital, injuries)." Contacted by "blinded" assessor but no confirmation of fractures from medical records.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Falls	Low risk	SeeAppendix 3 for method of assessment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Fallers	Low risk	SeeAppendix 3 for method of assessment
Risk of bias in recall of falls	Low risk	Quote: "… ascertained using prospective, participant‐completed monthly falls diaries, mailed to the research team at the end of every month."