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 |