Marsden 2010.

Methods	RCT cross‐over design Mobility‐related CCT plus education versus wait list control
Participants	26 participants (Group 1 = 12, Group 2 = 14), mean 2.5 years post‐stroke, mean age 71.7 years, clinical diagnosis of stroke
Interventions	Intervention: mobility‐related CCT, 10 x 5‐min workstations consisting of sit to stand, reaching, standing balance, walking figure 8, stationary bike; 1 h exercise and 1 h education, once a week for 7 weeks Comparison: wait list control Staff:participant ratio: 1:3
Outcomes	6mWT, TUG, Short‐form 36 (physical), Carer Strain Index
Notes	Only first comparison (pre‐cross over) included
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Toss of a coin by a team member
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Team member responsible for allocation
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No mention of blinding of staff or participants, however unlikely due to nature of trial. Unlikely to influence outcomes Primary outcomes assessor blinded Secondary outcome assessors not blinded. Only secondary outcomes used in the meta‐analysis
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Intention‐to‐treat. "… but no values were imputed for survivors or carers who did not attend an assessment session." Only 1 loss to follow‐up (hospitalisation) for intervention group. Figure 1 flow diagram
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol available
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias evident