Summary of findings 3. Summary of findings: one active intervention versus another active intervention.

One active intervention compared with another active intervention for recovery after stroke
Patient or population: adults with stroke Intervention: A physiotherapy intervention containing functional task training, neurophysiological or musculoskeletal components Comparison: A physiotherapy intervention that does not contain the same category of treatment components
Outcomes	Standardised mean difference (95% CI)	No. of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
3.1.1 Includes functional training versus does not include functional training Independence in ADL scales Immediate outcomes	‐0.03 (‐0.37 to 0.32)	4 studies (186 participants)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low	Quality of evidence downgraded from "moderate" to "low" because of the relatively low number of studies/participants
3.1.2 Includes neurophysiological versus does not include neurophysiological Independence in ADL scales Immediate outcomes	‐0.02 (‐0.26 to 0.22)	7 studies (451 participants)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate	Evidence primarily relates to interventions described as Bobath
3.1.3 Includes musculoskeletal versus does not include musculoskeletal Independence in ADL scales Immediate outcomes	‐0.12 (‐0.58 to 0.34)	3 studies (103 participants)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low	Quality of evidence downgraded from "moderate" to "low" because of the relatively low number of studies/participants
3.2.1 Includes functional training versus does not include functional training Motor function scales Immediate outcomes	‐0.16 (‐0.59 to 0.28)	4 studies (188 participants)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low	Quality of evidence downgraded from "moderate" to "low" because of the relatively low number of studies/participants
3.2.2 Includes neurophysiological versus does not include neurophysiological Motor function scales Immediate outcomes	0.17 (‐0.05 to 0.39)	8 studies (506 participants)	⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate	Evidence primarily relates to interventions described as Bobath
3.2.3 Includes musculoskeletal versus does not include musculoskeletal Motor function scales Immediate outcomes	‐0.08 (‐0.53 to 0.36)	4 studies (81 participants)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low	Quality of evidence downgraded from "moderate" to "low" because of the relatively low number of studies/participants
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.