Supplementary file 6 – Forest and funnel plots Effect of control-COM intervention on control-COM outcomes PEDro % TOTAL study_author SMD (95% CI) Weight 8 Allet 2010 1.06 (0.56, 1.56) 1.83 7 Ansai 2016 0.60 (-0.00, 1.20) 1.67 5 Arai 2007 -0.01 (-0.34, 0.33) 2.06 5 Audette 2006 0.48 (-0.45, 1.40) 1.21 8 Baker 2007 0.10 (-0.54, 0.74) 1.61 4 Binder 2002 0.24 (-0.13, 0.61) 2.01 7 Binder 2004 0.50 (0.04, 0.97) 1.88 4 Brown 2000 0.36 (-0.07, 0.80) 1.92 5 Carter 2002 0.12 (-0.32, 0.56) 1.92 6 Chin A Paw 2006 -0.44 (-0.96, 0.08) 1.79 4 Cho 2014 0.62 (-0.09, 1.33) 1.50 6 Chulvi-Medrano 2009 0.74 (-0.06, 1.54) 1.38 7 Cyarto 2008 0.25 (-0.18, 0.67) 1.93 5 de Bruin 2007 0.99 (0.15, 1.82) 1.33 5 Englund 2005 -0.19 (-0.81, 0.44) 1.64 4 Hackney 2007 0.24 (-0.66, 1.15) 1.23 5 Hauer 2003 0.58 (-0.03, 1.18) 1.66 6 Hirase 2015 0.87 (0.35, 1.39) 1.79 7 Hourigan 2008 0.48 (0.07, 0.88) 1.97 6 Irez 2011 -1.23 (-1.78, -0.67) 1.74 5 Islam 2004 1.33 (0.52, 2.14) 1.36 5 Jessup 2003 1.59 (0.51, 2.66) 1.03 6 Johansson 1991 0.11 (-0.57, 0.80) 1.54 4 Kim 2009 1.65 (1.02, 2.28) 1.62 7 Kronhed 2009 0.46 (-0.05, 0.97) 1.81 8 Kruse 2010 0.20 (-0.24, 0.65) 1.91 4 Lai 2013 1.06 (0.29, 1.83) 1.42 4 Lee 2012 1.88 (1.24, 2.52) 1.61 7 Lee Chang 2013 -0.19 (-0.35, -0.03) 2.25 5 Lee Shin 2013 0.81 (0.26, 1.36) 1.75 5 Li 2005 0.57 (0.32, 0.82) 2.17 4 Li 2008 0.43 (-0.20, 1.06) 1.62 5 Liu-Ambrose 2004 0.15 (-0.33, 0.64) 1.85 7 Liu-Ambrose 2008 -0.08 (-0.64, 0.48) 1.74 4 Lord 1995 -0.60 (-0.93, -0.28) 2.07 4 MacRae 1994 0.06 (-0.45, 0.57) 1.81 6 Mansfield 2010 -0.70 (-1.45, 0.04) 1.46 8 Melzer 2012 1.57 (1.02, 2.12) 1.74 4 Mian 2007 0.67 (-0.02, 1.36) 1.54 6 Nelson 2004 0.34 (-0.13, 0.81) 1.86 5 Park 2008 2.63 (1.86, 3.39) 1.42 4 Pereira 2008 0.63 (0.17, 1.08) 1.89 6 Ramsbottom 2004 0.06 (-0.96, 1.07) 1.10 4 Reinsch 1992 0.63 (-0.07, 1.33) 1.52 7 Rubenstein 2000 -0.08 (-0.61, 0.45) 1.78 7 Schoene 2013 -0.18 (-0.88, 0.51) 1.52 7 Sherrington 2004 -0.17 (-0.65, 0.30) 1.87 7 Shigematsu 2008 0.13 (-0.37, 0.62) 1.83 5 Shimada 2003 0.32 (-0.55, 1.19) 1.28 5 Sihvonen 2004 0.28 (-0.65, 1.22) 1.20 4 Sofianidis 2009 -0.02 (-0.79, 0.75) 1.41 6 Swanenburg 2007 0.54 (-0.36, 1.43) 1.25 5 Toulotte 2012 0.94 (-0.04, 1.92) 1.14 6 Vestergaard 2008 0.28 (-0.32, 0.89) 1.66 8 Vogler 2009 0.50 (0.12, 0.88) 2.00 7 Voukelatos 2007 0.07 (-0.10, 0.24) 2.24 6 Weerdesteyn 2006 0.07 (-0.38, 0.52) 1.91 3 Wolf 1997 0.30 (-0.34, 0.94) 1.61 6 Wolfson 1996 0.73 (0.08, 1.38) 1.59 4 Zhang 2006 1.84 (1.15, 2.52) 1.54 Overall (I-squared = 80.6%, p = 0.000) 0.42 (0.27, 0.56) 100.00 NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis -1 0 1 Control Intervention Figure S6.1.1: Forest plot of meta-analysis of control-COM interventions on control-COM outcomes indicating a moderate effect in favour of the intervention (SMD 0.42, CIs 0.27, 0.56) Figure S6.1.2: Funnel plots of publication biases of studies included in the meta-analysis of Control COM interventions. The y-axis represents the standard error of the standardised mean difference (seSMD) and the x-axis represents the standardised mean difference. Each circle represents a study. A reasonable spread of effect sizes around the mean indicates any influence publication bias might have appears to be relatively small. Supplementary file 6 – Forest and funnel plots Effect of mobility intervention on mobility outcomes PEDro % TOTAL study_author SMD (95% CI) Weight 8 Allet 2010 0.50 (0.03, 0.97) 2.58 7 Ansai 2016 -0.16 (-0.75, 0.42) 2.10 5 Arai 2007 0.15 (-0.19, 0.48) 3.26 5 Au-Yeung 2002 -0.07 (-1.00, 0.86) 1.16 8 Baker 2007 0.13 (-0.51, 0.77) 1.91 7 Bravo 1996 0.42 (0.07, 0.78) 3.16 4 Brown 2000 0.42 (-0.01, 0.86) 2.75 5 Carter 2002 -0.07 (-0.51, 0.36) 2.74 7 Chaipinyo 2009 1.62 (0.91, 2.32) 1.69 6 Cheung 2008 0.20 (-0.36, 0.75) 2.21 6 Chulvi-Medrano 2009 0.78 (-0.03, 1.58) 1.44 7 Cyarto 2008 0.05 (-0.38, 0.47) 2.80 8 Fitzgerald 2011 -0.27 (-0.56, 0.02) 3.50 6 Gao 2014 0.76 (0.30, 1.23) 2.61 5 Hartmann 2009 1.23 (0.49, 1.97) 1.60 5 Hauer 2003 1.13 (0.49, 1.77) 1.90 6 Hirase 2015 0.84 (0.32, 1.36) 2.36 7 Hourigan 2008 0.87 (0.46, 1.29) 2.86 6 Huang 2010 0.25 (-0.21, 0.70) 2.66 7 Jorgensen 2012 0.44 (-0.09, 0.97) 2.34 7 Karinkanta 2007 0.21 (-0.25, 0.66) 2.65 8 Kruse 2010 0.06 (-0.38, 0.50) 2.73 4 Lai 2013 1.01 (0.24, 1.77) 1.53 5 Lazowski 1999 0.58 (0.09, 1.08) 2.48 7 Lee Chang 2013 0.07 (-0.09, 0.23) 4.14 5 Lee Shin 2013 1.07 (0.50, 1.64) 2.17 5 Li 2005 0.44 (0.19, 0.69) 3.73 7 Liu-Ambrose 2008 0.58 (0.02, 1.13) 2.21 6 Madureira 2007 -0.24 (-0.75, 0.27) 2.42 6 Mansfield 2010 0.00 (-0.72, 0.72) 1.66 5 Means 2005 0.00 (-0.28, 0.28) 3.57 6 Nelson 2004 0.64 (0.16, 1.12) 2.53 4 Netz 2007 -0.41 (-1.23, 0.41) 1.39 4 Peterson 2004 0.14 (-0.39, 0.67) 2.32 6 Ramsbottom 2004 0.45 (-0.58, 1.48) 1.00 8 Rolland 2007 0.09 (-0.29, 0.46) 3.07 5 Schilling 2009 0.30 (-0.61, 1.20) 1.21 7 Schoene 2013 0.12 (-0.57, 0.82) 1.73 7 Shigematsu 2008 -0.12 (-0.61, 0.38) 2.48 5 Shimada 2003 -0.38 (-1.25, 0.49) 1.27 8 Shumway-Cook 2007 0.25 (0.06, 0.44) 4.01 6 Suzuki 2004 0.09 (-0.50, 0.68) 2.08 Overall (I-squared = 62.7%, p = 0.000) 0.31 (0.20, 0.43) 100.00 NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis -1 0 1 Control Intervention Figure S6.2.1: Forest plot of meta-analysis of mobility interventions on mobility outcomes indicating a small effect in favour of the intervention (SMD 0.31, CIs 0.20, 0.43) Figure S6.2.2: Funnel plots of publication biases of studies included in the meta-analysis of mobility interventions. The y-axis represents the standard error of the standardised mean difference (seSMD) and the x-axis represents the standardised mean difference. Each circle represents a study. A reasonable spread of effect sizes around the mean indicates any influence publication bias might have appears to be relatively small. Supplementary file 6 – Forest and funnel plots Effect of multi-dimensional intervention on multi-dimensional outcomes PEDro % TOTAL study_author SMD (95% CI) Weight 9 Allet 2010 0.91 (0.42, 1.40) 3.39 8 Ashburn 2007 0.07 (-0.28, 0.41) 4.24 5 Au-Yeung 2002 -0.45 (-1.39, 0.49) 1.63 5 Beyer 2007 0.76 (0.20, 1.32) 3.02 4 Binder 2002 0.41 (0.03, 0.78) 4.07 7 Binder 2004 0.66 (0.21, 1.11) 3.63 4 Brown 2000 0.40 (-0.04, 0.84) 3.69 7 Cheung 2008 0.98 (0.39, 1.57) 2.88 5 de Bruin 2007 0.58 (-0.22, 1.38) 2.03 5 Englund 2005 0.38 (-0.25, 1.01) 2.70 6 Eyigor 2009 1.05 (0.36, 1.74) 2.43 6 Gao 2014 0.44 (-0.02, 0.89) 3.59 7 Haines 2009 0.25 (-0.38, 0.89) 2.67 5 Hauer 2003 1.16 (0.50, 1.82) 2.57 5 Hinman 2002 -0.03 (-0.53, 0.48) 3.30 8 Kruse 2010 -0.08 (-0.52, 0.36) 3.67 4 Lai 2013 0.90 (0.15, 1.66) 2.19 5 Lazowski 1999 1.19 (0.67, 1.71) 3.24 5 Lee Shin 2013 0.94 (0.38, 1.50) 3.03 5 Li 2005 0.51 (0.26, 0.76) 4.82 5 Lin 2007 0.03 (-0.39, 0.46) 3.75 4 Liu 2007 1.99 (0.96, 3.03) 1.41 8 Logghe 2009 0.12 (-0.15, 0.39) 4.70 6 Madureira 2007 1.13 (0.59, 1.68) 3.09 8 Pang 2005 0.08 (-0.42, 0.57) 3.37 7 Rubenstein 2000 0.27 (-0.26, 0.80) 3.17 5 Shimada 2003 -0.28 (-1.15, 0.59) 1.83 8 Shumway-Cook 2007 0.25 (0.06, 0.44) 5.13 5 Sihvonen 2004 1.15 (0.15, 2.14) 1.51 6 Swanenburg 2007 1.27 (0.30, 2.25) 1.56 5 Toulotte 2012 1.01 (0.02, 2.00) 1.52 4 Westlake 2007 0.31 (-0.35, 0.97) 2.56 8 Wolf 2001 0.38 (-0.08, 0.83) 3.61 Overall (I-squared = 62.3%, p = 0.000) 0.50 (0.36, 0.65) 100.00 NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis -1 0 1 Control Intervention Figure S6.3.1: Forest plot of meta-analysis of multidimensional interventions on multidimensional outcomes indicating a moderate effect in favour of the intervention (SMD 0.50, CIs 0.36, 0.65) Figure S6.3.2: Funnel plots of publication biases of studies included in the meta-analysis of multidimensional interventions.