Liu‐Ambrose 2004.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT
Participants	Setting: British Colombia (BC), Canada N = 104 Sample: women with osteoporosis or osteopenia diagnosed at BC Women's Hospital and Health Centre; individuals with low BMD identified through Osteoporosis Society of Canada; advertising Age (years): mean 79 (SD 3), range 75 to 85 Inclusion criteria: women aged 75 to 85; osteoporosis or osteopenia (BMD total hip or spine T score at least 1 SD below young normal sex matched area BMD of the Lunar reference database); resident in greater Vancouver Exclusion criteria: living in care facility; non‐Caucasian race; regularly exercising 2 x per wk or more; history of illness or a condition affecting balance (stroke, Parkinson's disease); unable to safely participate in exercise programme; MMSE 23 or less
Interventions	1. High‐intensity resistance training 50 min, 2 x per wk 25 wks using Keiser Pressurized Air system and free weights. Instructor:participant ratio 1:2 2. Agility training 50 min, 2 x per wk for 25 wks. Training (ball games, relay races, dance movements, obstacle courses wearing hip protectors) designed to challenge hand‐eye and foot‐eye co‐ordination, and dynamic, standing and leaning balance, and reaction time. Instructor:participant ratio 1:3 3. Control: sham exercises 50 min, 2 x per wk for 25 wks. Stretching, deep breathing, relaxation, general posture. Instructor:participant ratio 1:4
Outcomes	1. Rate of falls 2. Number of people with more than 1 fall (i.e. frequent fallers) 3. Number of people with adverse effects Other outcomes reported but not included in this review
Duration of the study	25 wks
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of randomisation not described but stratified by baseline performance in postural sway
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	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	High risk	All participants asked to keep falls diary. All groups had exercise interventions. Study described as "single blind" which indicates that assessors were not blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Falls	Low risk	SeeAppendix 3 for method of assessment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Fallers	Unclear risk	SeeAppendix 3 for method of assessment
Risk of bias in recall of falls	Low risk	Prospective. Quote: "Falls documented using monthly falls calendars."