Lennon 2006.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Method of randomisation: "after giving informed consent, patients were randomised using sealed envelopes"
Participants	Number of participants: n = 61 Inclusion criteria: "All consecutive patients within 8 to 14 days poststroke were included if medically stable with a first‐ever stroke and they were able to stand or walk with assistance"
Interventions	(1) Bobath group (n = 30) "Conventional Bobath therapy" The individual components delivered are listed in Table 6. Based on the individual components, this intervention is categorised as comprising neurophysiological intervention Length of intervention period: four weeks Number of sessions and length of individual sessions: five sessions/wk (total of 20 sessions) lasting 40 minutes Intervention provider: not stated (2) Gait‐specific group (n = 31) "introducing more walking practice into Bobath therapy (spending 50% of the daily physiotherapy session working on walking practice)" The individual components delivered are listed in Table 6. Based on the individual components, this intervention is categorised as comprising functional task training and neurophysiological intervention Length of intervention period: four weeks Number of sessions and length of individual sessions: five sessions/wk (total of 20 sessions) lasting 40 minutes Intervention provider: not stated This study is classified as active intervention one (neurophysiological) versus active intervention two (functional task training, neurophysiological) (Table 9)
Outcomes	Measures of Independence in ADL: Barthel Index Measures of motor function: Motor Assessment Scale, modified Rivermead Mobility Index Measures of postural control and balance: Step test Measures of voluntary movements: 10‐Metre Walk test Time points when outcomes were assessed: "All measures were performed by a blinded assessor at baseline, post intervention, at 3 and 6 months post stroke"
Notes	Abstracts only Data not suitable for analysis
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"patients were randomised using sealed envelopes"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Blinded assessor
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No dropouts
Free of systematic differences in baseline characteristics of groups compared?	Unclear risk	No information provided
Did authors adjust for baseline differences in their analyses?	Unclear risk	No information provided
Other bias	Unclear risk	No information provided