Song 2015.

Methods	RCT Mobility CCT vs mobility CCT individually provided vs conventional therapy
Participants	30 participants (intervention = 11, comparison (individual) = 10, comparison (conventional therapy) = 9, more than 6 months post‐stroke (mean and upper range not given), mean age 56.2, able to walk 10 m without assistance
Interventions	Intervention: mobility CCT, provided in circuit Comparison (individual): mobility exercises, provided one‐to‐one Comparison (conventional therapy): not described 30 min/day, 3 times/week for 4 weeks Inpatient rehabilitation Staff:participant ratio: not specified
Outcomes	Gait speed, cadence, self‐esteem scale, motivation of rehabilitation, relationship change scale
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol available
Other bias	Unclear risk	Study failed to report any of the above points. Only small sample sizes (n = 9, n = 10, n = 11). Participant assignment was unclear: "Twelve patients were excluded due to health problems, so subjects were randomly assigned to …"