Park 2010a.
| Methods | RCT 2‐arm parallel‐group design |
|
| Participants | Participants with unilateral poststroke hemiparesis Diagnosis: haemorrhagic stroke (32%), infarction (68%) Time since onset: mean 15.5 months (SD 5) N randomised to experimental condition (fast‐tempo auditory stimulation (FTAS)): 13 N randomised to wait‐list control: 13 N analysed in FTAS: 13 N analysed in control: 12 Mean age: 59.55 years Sex: 16 females (64%), 9 males (36%) Ethnicity: not reported Setting: rehabilitation unit Country: South Korea |
|
| Interventions | 2 study groups: 1. Music intervention group: FTAS 2. Control group: walking training with no specific auditory stimulation Number of sessions: 20 sessions in total, with sessions twice a day 5 days a week over 2 weeks Length of sessions: 30 minutes |
|
| Outcomes | Gait parameters: gait velocity, gait cadence, stride length, Wisconsin Gait Scale: post‐test scores used. | |
| Notes | This study used rhythm delivered by a metronome in combination with recorded music. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Randomisation through drawing of lots (correspondence with principal investigator) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Allocation concealment through drawing of sealed envelopes (correspondence with principal investigator) |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | It is not possible to blind participants receiving FTAS or the personnel involved in delivering FTAS |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes | Low risk | No subjective outcomes were included in this study |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes | High risk | Blinding of the outcome assessors for the objective outcomes was not reported |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | 1 participant was eliminated from the data analysis due to a history of irregular participation in repeated trials. Attrition reported at 3.85%. Quote: "During the study, one CG subject was eliminated from data analysis due to a history of irregular participation in repeated trials" (p296) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | There are no indications of selective reporting for this study |
| Free from financial conflict of interest | Low risk | No funding support was reported |