Comparison 2. Exercise vs control (number of fallers).

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
2.1 Number of fallers	9	932	Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.90 [0.80, 1.00]
2.2 Number of fallers subgrouped by ProFaNE exercise categories	9	932	Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.90 [0.80, 1.00]
2.2.1 Gait, balance and functional training vs Control	6	622	Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.92 [0.81, 1.04]
2.2.2 Resistance training vs control	2	136	Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.87 [0.43, 1.74]
2.2.3 3D exercise (Tai Chi) vs control	2	174	Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.59 [0.36, 0.95]
2.3 Number of fallers ‐ subgrouped by % supervision (100% supervision vs <100% supervision)	9		Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
2.3.1 100% supervision	4	328	Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.75 [0.53, 1.06]
2.3.2 < 100% supervision	5	604	Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.92 [0.82, 1.04]
2.4 Number of fallers ‐ subgrouped by baseline fall risk (increased fall risk vs fall risk not specified)	9		Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
2.4.1 Higher fall risk participants	5	576	Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.89 [0.76, 1.04]
2.4.2 Unspecified fall risk participants	4	356	Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.86 [0.67, 1.11]
2.5 Number of fallers ‐ pooled disease severity subgroup analyses	2		Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
2.5.1 Higher disease severity participants	2	139	Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.19 [1.00, 1.41]
2.5.2 lower disease severity participants	2	218	Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.78 [0.62, 0.98]