Werner 2002.

Methods	Cross‐over RCT Method of randomisation: participants randomly assigned to groups (group allocation in envelopes that were drawn by an independent person) Blinding of outcome assessors: yes Adverse events: none Deaths: none Dropouts: none ITT: yes
Participants	Country: Germany 30 participants (15 in treatment group, 15 in control group) Non‐ambulatory at study onset Mean age: 60 years Inclusion criteria: first stroke, supratentorial lesion 4 to 12 weeks' poststroke, younger than 75 years of age, not able to walk (FAC of 2 or less), able to sit unsupported on the edge of a bed, able to stand for at least 10 seconds with help, able to provide and did provide written informed consent Exclusion criteria: hip and knee extension deficit > 20 degrees; passive dorsiflexion of the affected ankle to less than a neutral position; severe impairment of cognition or communication; evidence of cardiac ischaemia, arrhythmia, decompression, or heart failure; feeling of 'overexertion' or heart rate exceeding the age‐predicted maximum (i.e. 190 beats/minute minus age) during training; resting systolic blood pressure exceeding 200 mm Hg at rest or dropping by more than 10 mm Hg with increasing workload
Interventions	2 arms: 2 weeks A, 2 weeks B, 2 weeks A 2 weeks B, 2 weeks A, 2 weeks B Treated as inpatients for five 15‐ to 20‐minute sessions per week for 2 weeks A: treadmill training with body weight support: participants walked on a treadmill with partial body weight support provided by a harness B: gait trainer with body weight support: participants walked on Gait Trainer with partial body weight support provided by a harness
Outcomes	Outcomes were recorded at baseline and after 2 weeks (additionally after 4 and 6 weeks, but only the first phase was included in this review): FAC Fast walking speed over 10 metres with personal assistance and gait aids if required Rivermead Motor Assessment Scale Ankle spasticity (Modified Ashworth Scale)
Notes	We used the first treatment phase only. Published and unpublished data provided by the authors. 0% dropouts at the end of first treatment phase (data were analysed as ITT)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	By envelopes
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Concealed envelopes that were drawn by an independent person
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Yes
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing data