Song 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT
Participants	Setting: home, Australia N = 60 Sample: recruited from metropolitan Sydney, via Parkinson’s disease support groups and neurology clinics (60% women) Age (years): mean (SD) intervention group 68 (7), control group 65 (7) Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of idiopathic PD; living in the community; age 40 years or older; ability to walk unaided for at least 30 metres; stable antiparkinsonian medication for at least 2 weeks Exclusion criteria: cognitive impairment (Mini‐mental State Examination score of < 24); medical conditions which would preclude or interfere with physical assessment or stepping training Disease severity at baseline: MDS‐UPDRS motor score mean (SD) 32 (12)
Interventions	Exercise 1. Exercise: home‐based stepping training exercise video game (at least 15 minutes, 3x/week for 12 weeks ‐ including 3 sessions supervised by a therapist, with two of these supervised sessions at the beginning and one in the middle of the intervention period), plus usual activities and health care 2. Control: maintain usual activities and healthcare
Outcomes	1. Rate of falls 2. Number of fallers Other outcomes reported but not included in this review
Duration of the study	6 months
Funding source	Parkinson's New South Wales Bendigo Bank Parkinson's Research Grant and a University of Sydney Bridging Support Grant
Notes	Fall data collected: during the 6‐month intervention period by monthly falls diaries
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: "The random allocation was conducted using a computer‐generated table with randomly permuted blocks..."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocation concealment was described as by central allocation. Quote: “The trial manager emailed the allocating researcher, who was located offsite and was not involved in recruitment, intervention or outcome assessment."
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.
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 (ACTRN12613000688785) 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.