Outermans 2010.

Methods	RCT High‐intensity, mobility‐related CCT versus low‐intensity, mobility‐related CCT
Participants	44 participants (intervention = 23, comparison = 21), mean time since stroke 0.75 months, mean age 56.6, able to walk 10 m independently
Interventions	Intervention: high‐intensity mobility CCT, workstations based on Dean 2000 with progressive target heart rate; 45‐60 minutes, 3 times/week for 4 weeks in addition to 30 min/day usual care physiotherapy Comparison: low‐intensity mobility CCT, not clear if same exercises were included, no progression of heart rate; 45‐60 minutes, 3 times/week for 4 weeks in addition to 30 min/day usual care physiotherapy Staff:participant ratio: not reported
Outcomes	6mWT, gait speed, BBS, functional reach
Notes	Adverse events, duration (number of days) of training
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Reported as "randomly generated" but description of how was not presented
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Allocation was performed by drawing randomly generated lots enclosed in opaque envelopes."
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	"All clinical assessments were conducted by one assessor, who was not blinded for allocation. To minimize bias the assessor was not present at the group training at any time. Also previous assessments were not available during post‐test assessment and all instructions were standardized."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Intention‐to‐treat. "Missing values were imputed using the assumption of a worst‐case scenario in which the baseline value was carried forward." Reasons for loss to follow‐up are available: 6 lost in intervention group, 7 in control group
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol available
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias evident