Pollock 1998.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT Method of randomisation: blocked randomisation, with two control (neurophysiology): one intervention (mixed); sealed opaque envelopes numbered and opened sequentially
Participants	Number of participants: n = 28 Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of stroke less than six weeks previously, attending regular physiotherapy sessions, able to achieve one minute of independent sitting balance, unable to achieve 10 independent steps, no known disabilities, pathology or neurological deficit that affected mobility before the current hospital admission and able to understand the nature of the study and give informed consent
Interventions	(1) Additional motor learning (n = 9) Independent practice of context‐specific tasks Supervised practice of seated reaching tasks The individual components delivered are listed in Table 6. Based on the individual components, this intervention is categorised as comprising functional task training Length of intervention period: four weeks Number of sessions and length of individual sessions: addition of one hour per day, five days per week, in addition to usual care Intervention provider: physiotherapists (2) Usual care (Bobath) (n = 19) Based on assessment by treating physiotherapist: routine care The individual components delivered are listed in Table 6. Based on the individual components, this intervention is categorised as usual care (neurophysiological intervention) Length of intervention period: four weeks Number of sessions and length of individual sessions: usual care, normally once per day, five days per week Intervention provider: physiotherapists This study is classified as intervention (functional task training) versus usual care (neurophysiological) (Table 8)
Outcomes	Measures of independence in ADL: Barthel Index Measures of postural control and balance: symmetry during sitting, standing, rising to stand, sitting down; weight transference during reaching Time points when outcomes were assessed: at end of intervention (six weeks)
Notes	Participants who were discharged from hospital before the end of the study period (six weeks) were not followed up, resulting in considerable numbers of dropouts from the study
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Blocked randomisation, with two control (neurophysiology): one intervention (mixed); sealed opaque envelopes numbered and opened sequentially
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	No information provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participant not blinded Therapist not blinded Assessor not blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Dropouts accounted for 11/19 in the control group and five of nine in the intervention group completed final assessment "This pilot study had low numbers of participants, and a relatively high number of withdrawals"
Free of systematic differences in baseline characteristics of groups compared?	Unclear risk	Difference in gender distribution between the groups, but other characteristics similar
Did authors adjust for baseline differences in their analyses?	Unclear risk	No information provided
Other bias	High risk	The control group received no additional treatment, and the treatment group received the intervention away from the ward and from control group participants; therefore it is unlikely that there was any contamination between groups Attendance at the practice sessions was voluntary and varied considerably between participants The culture of the ward and rehabilitation was identified to be based on Bobath principles, and practice was found to conflict with these; this may have affected the motivation of participants in the practice group