Dean 2000.

Methods	RCT Mobility CCT versus upper limb CCT
Participants	9 participants (intervention = 5, comparison = 4), mean 1.3 years post‐stroke, mean age 62.3 years, able to walk 10 m independently with or without gait aid
Interventions	Intervention: mobility‐related CCT, 10 workstations functional tasks including seated reaching beyond arms' reach, sit to stand, stepping activities, heel lifts, standing balance, strengthening exercises, walking activities; 1 h, 3 times/week for 4 weeks Comparison: upper limb‐related CCT, workstations consisting of upper limb tasks; 1 h, 3 times/week for 4 weeks Staff:participant ratio: 1:6
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
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation by lottery: "drawing two cards, one with subject's name and one with group allocation from two separate boxes"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Cards drawn by a person independent of the study
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) 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 (attrition bias) 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
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No trial protocol
Other bias	High risk	Very small sample size