Pang 2005.
| Methods | RCT Mobility CCT versus upper limb CCT | |
| Participants | 63 participants (Group 1 = 32, Group 2 = 31), mean 5.1 years post‐stroke, mean age 65.3 years, able to walk 10 m independently with or without gait aids | |
| Interventions | Intervention: mobility‐related CCT based on FAME programme including warm‐up, stretching, functional strengthening, balance, agility & fitness, cool down including target heart rate; 1‐h session, 3 times/week for 19 weeks
Comparison: upper‐limb‐related CCT including strengthening, range of motion, functional reach and manipulation tasks; 1‐h session, 3 times/week for 19 weeks Staff:participant ratio: not reported |
|
| Outcomes | 6mWT, BBS, VO2max, knee extension strength (dynamometer), PASIPD, proximal femur BMD | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Drawing ballots |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Ballots drawn by person not involved with enrolment, screening, or outcome assessments |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Research personnel who performed outcome assessments were blinded to group assignment |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Similar small amount of missing data across groups Missing data imputed from baseline values and intention‐to‐treat analysis used |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | This study was reported in at least 3 separate papers all including different outcome measures |
| Other bias | Low risk | Adequate sample size |