Ashburn 2007.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT
Participants	Setting: home, UK N = 142 Sample: recruited from clinical registers of three PD specialists in two National Health Service (NHS) trusts (39% women) Age (years): mean (SD) intervention group 72.7 (9.6), control group 71.6 (8.8) Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of idiopathic PD; independently mobile; living at home in the community; > 1 fall in the previous 12 months; passed a screening test for gross cognitive impairment Exclusion criteria: pain preventing participation in assessments; an acute medical condition Disease severity at baseline: HY stage 2 to 4, UPDRS motor score mean (SD) 21.0 (10.2)
Interventions	Exercise 1. Exercise: 6‐week home‐supervised exercises designed with six levels of progression comprising of strength (lower limb), range of movement, balance training and walking exercises. Plus strategy training for falls prevention and movement initiation and compensation. The supervised exercises were performed for 60 minutes, 1x/week for 6 weeks. Plus, home unsupervised exercises (minutes not reported), 7x/week for 6 months 2. Control: usual care (usual care for the vast majority comprised contact with a local PD nurse)
Outcomes	1. Rate of falls (data provided by trial authors on request) 2. Number of fallers 3. Number reporting a fall‐related fracture 4. Quality of life (EQ‐5D) Other outcomes reported but not included in this review
Duration of the study	6 months
Funding source	Action Medical Research, and the John and Lucille Van Geest Foundation
Notes	Fall data collected: at 8 weeks and 6 months follow‐up by monthly falls diaries
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of generating the randomisation list not described. Quote: "Randomisation was stratified by NHS Trust using blocks of size four."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocation concealment was described as by central allocation. Quote: "After the baseline assessment by the assessor, the treating physiotherapist obtained the random allocation by telephoning the Medical Statistics Group at the University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.”
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Participants and intervention (exercise) delivery personnel not blinded to group allocation but impact of non‐blinding unclear.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Falls and fallers	Unclear risk	Unclear if personnel collecting fall information were blinded to group allocation.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Fractures	Unclear risk	The evidence for fractures was from self‐reports from participants or carers. Quote: "Participants were also asked to record injuries as a result of falls (cuts and bruises, fractures or other trauma) and whether they attended the hospital, sought other forms of medical help or self‐managed their injuries.”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Falls	Low risk	See appendix for method of assessment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Fallers	Low risk	See appendix for method of assessment
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The study protocol is available (ISRCTN63503875) and all of the study’s pre‐specified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest in the review have been reported in the pre‐specified way.
Method of ascertaining falls (recall bias) Falls and fallers	Low risk	The study used concurrent collection of data about falling with monthly, or more frequent, follow‐up by the researchers. Quote: “Fall events that were experienced during the trial period were recorded prospectively using self‐completed diaries. Each month, participants were sent a falls diary sheet, consisting of daily numbered date boxes. Individuals recorded “F” for a “fall” and “NF” for a “near fall”whenever these occurred, and returned the sheets to the secretary in a stamped addressed envelope.”