Tang 2014.

Methods	RCT Mobility CCT (with aerobic exercise component) vs balance and stretching exercises without aerobic stimulus
Participants	50 participants (intervention = 25, comparison = 25), mean 4.2 years post‐stroke, mean 66.4 years, able to walk 5 m independently with or without gait aids
Interventions	Intervention: aerobic training with target progressive heart rate using brisk walking, cycling, step ups, sit to stands Comparison: balance and flexibility non‐aerobic, including balance exercise progressed to be challenging 60‐min sessions 3 times/week for 6 months Staff:participant ratio: 3:12
Outcomes	6mWT, VO2 peak, arterial stiffness, cardiac function, cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting glucose
Notes	Adverse events and adherence to class attendance reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"… performed the randomisation using a computer‐generated 1:1 allocation sequence and permuted block sizes of 2 or 4."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	States "concealed allocation" with no description
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Single‐blinded trial. Unlikely to influence outcomes "Blinded outcome assessors were used."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Intention‐to‐treat analysis Dropouts described, with only 3 from 1 group and none from the other. Reasons unrelated to the programme
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol available
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias evident