Gandolfi 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT
Participants	Setting: home (virtual reality telerehabilitation group) and facility (sensory‐integration balance training group), Italy N = 76 Sample: recruited from four neurorehabilitation units in Veneto, Italy (predominantly rural areas) (33% women) Age (years): mean (SD) virtual reality telerehabilitation group 67.5 (7.2), sensory‐integration balance training group 69.8 (9.4) Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of PD according to the UK Brain bank criteria; aged over 18 years; modified Hoehn and Yahr stage 2.5 to 3; stable medication for the past month; able to transfer and maintain upright standing for at least 10 minutes; presence of a caregiver Exclusion criteria: cardiovascular, orthopaedic and otovestibular disorders; visual or other neurological conditions that could interfere with balance; severe dyskinesias or on‐off fluctuations; Mini‐mental State Examination score < 24/30; severe depression measured on the Geriatric Depression scale. Disease severity at baseline: HY stage 2.5 to 3, UPDRS total score mean (SD) 47.4 (24.1)
Interventions	Exercise 1. Virtual reality telerehabilitation balance training: Nintendo Wii Fit exergames (Nintendo Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan) delivered via telehealth (Skype, Microsoft, USA) to participants in their homes, two participants at a time (50 min, 3x/week for 7 weeks) 2. Sensory integration balance training: balance exercises under different sensory conditions, delivered individually at a facility (50 minutes, 3x/week for 7 weeks)
Outcomes	1. Rate of falls 2. Quality of life (PDQ8) 3. Cost of delivering the intervention Other outcomes reported but not included in this review
Duration of the study	11 weeks
Funding source	Ricerca Sanitaria Finalizzata Regionale, 2010 (grant no. 319/10)
Notes	Fall data collected: for the prior 1 month in a self‐report logbook, measured at 7 weeks (post intervention) and 11 weeks (follow‐up)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	A random component in the sequence generation was described. Quote: "After screening, a list was generated using computer‐generated random number tables (allocation ratio 1:1). Eligible patients were consecutively entered into the list."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement as a method of concealment is not described.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Participants and intervention (two different exercise interventions) delivery personnel not blinded to group allocation but impact of non‐blinding unclear.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Falls and fallers	Low risk	Outcomes were recorded/confirmed in all allocated groups using the same method and the personnel recording/confirming outcomes were blind to group allocation. Quote: "At each study center, outcomes were assessed by a single examiner blinded to treatment assignment."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Falls	Low risk	See appendix for method of assessment.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement of ‘Low risk’ or ‘High risk’ as no published trial protocol or trial registration available.
Method of ascertaining falls (recall bias) Falls and fallers	Unclear risk	Deatails of ascertainment were not described. Quote: "The number of falls in the previous month was recorded in a self‐report log."