Dean 2000

Methods	RCT Mobility CCT versus upper limb CCT
Participants	9 participants (Group 1 = 5, Group 2 = 4), mean 1.3 years post‐stroke, mean age 62.3 years, able to walk 10 metres independently with or without gait aid
Interventions	Group 1: mobility‐related CCT Group 2: upper limb‐related CCT
Outcomes	6mWT, Step Test, TUG, gait speed, peak vertical ground reaction force through affected lower limb during sit‐to‐stand, laboratory measures of gait kinematics and kinetics
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Adequate sequence generation?	Low risk	Randomisation by lottery: "drawing two cards, one with subject's name and one with group allocation from two separate boxes"
Allocation concealment?	Low risk	Cards drawn by a person independent of the study
Blinding? All outcomes	High risk	Clinical assessments, with exception of 6mWT, conducted by independent rater; however, this blinding may have been unmasked as the result of this observer inadvertently observing 1 training session
Incomplete outcome data addressed? All outcomes	High risk	Missing data balanced across groups (1 in experimental and 2 in control) for transport or unrelated illness reasons, but no intention‐to‐treat analysis undertaken
Free of selective reporting?	Low risk	All outcome measures reported
Free of other bias?	High risk	Very small sample size