Moore 2015.

Methods	RCT Mobility CCT vs home stretching (matched duration)
Participants	40 participants (intervention = 20, comparison = 20), mean time since stroke 1.5 years, mean age 69 years, able to complete 6mWT with or without gait aid
Interventions	Intervention: mobility CCT based on FAME programme including warm‐up, stretching, functional strengthening, balance, agility & fitness, cool down; 45‐60 minutes, 3 times/week for 19 weeks Comparison: home stretching programme of matched duration; 45 to 60 minutes 3 times/week for 19 weeks Staff:participant ratio: not reported
Outcomes	6mWT, gait speed, BBS, SIS (physical), VO2 peak, peak work rate, Addenbrook's Cognitive Examination (revised, ACE‐r), blood cholesterol, 2‐hour glucose, HOMA index, blood pressure, BMI, fat mass, brain physiology (cerebral blood flow)
Notes	Adverse events reported, not actual therapy time delivered
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"A computerized random number generator was used to allocate treatment by an independent administrator after screening."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"… the administrator was telephoned for the next number in the sequence to enable participant randomisation."
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Single‐blind RCT No mention of blinding participants or personnel. It would be unlikely that study participants and staff were blinded due to the nature of the trial. Unlikely to influence outcomes Assessors were blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	States participants performed "… > 90% of outcome assessments and exercise sessions." Although these were not defined All participants completed the intervention, none lost to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol available
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias evident