Nadeau 2013.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial Method of randomisation: computer‐generated randomisation sequence Blinding of outcome assessors: yes Adverse events: none Deaths: none Drop‐outs: 9 (7 in experimental groups, 2 in control group) ITT: no
Participants	Country: Canada 93 patients (29 in treatment group I, 30 in treatment group II, 34 in control group) Ambulatory at study onset: not stated Mean age: 62 to 64 years (treatment and control group respectively) Inclusion criteria: not clearly stated except idiopathic PD and living up to 45 min away from the study centre Exclusion criteria: major health problem (cancer, heart/lung problems)
Interventions	3 arms: (1) control group used low exercise intensity training in seated position, 3 times a week for 24 weeks (180 min a week) (2) experimental group I received incremental speed treadmill training, 3 times a week for 24 weeks (180 min a week) (3) experimental group II received (mixed treadmill training) incremental speed treadmill training with additional incremental treadmill inclination, 3 times a week for 24 weeks (180 min a week)
Outcomes	Outcomes were recorded at baseline, at halving interval at 3 months and at the end of intervention phase at 6 months Walking speed (GAITRite) Stride length (GAITRite) Cadence (GAITRite) Step width (GAITRite) Gait capacity (6‐min walk test) Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Depression Beck (Depression Inventory – II (BDI‐II)) Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ) Balance Confidence Scale Exercise intensity Exercise adherence Exercise‐related adverse events
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated randomisation sequence
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “The allocation sequence was concealed from the project director who assigned participants to groups.”
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: “Participants and research assistants performing the assessments were blind to group assignment”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	missing outcome data imbalanced between groups but not directly attributable to the intervention; no intention‐to‐treat analysis performed