Mudge 2009a.

Methods	RCT Mobility‐related CCT versus education or social groups
Participants	58 participants (Group 1 = 31, Group 2 = 27), mean 4.9 years post‐stroke, mean age 69.1 years, able to walk 10 m independently with or without gait aid
Interventions	Intervention: mobility CCT, 15 2‐min workstations including walking, standing balance and strengthening; 50‐60 min 3 times/week for 4 weeks Comparison: 4 social and 4 educational sessions; duration not specified, twice a week for 4 weeks Staff:participant ratio: 3:9
Outcomes	Gait speed, 6mWT, RMI, ABC, steps per day using activity monitor, PADS
Notes	Repetitions and details about exercise intensity recorded each station
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated random numbers
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Person independent of the study matched the participants to the codes
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Unmasking occurred for 3 out of 58 participants (5%)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	2 lost before randomisation, 3 withdrew before post‐intervention assessment and a further 5 lost before follow‐up assessment; losses balanced across groups Intention‐to‐treat analysis undertaken with imputation of missing data using carry forward method
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol available
Other bias	Low risk	Adequate sample size