Au 2014.

Methods	Single‐blind RCT.
Participants	Number screened: 26. Number included: 22. Number followed up: 20. Number of withdrawals: 2. Diagnosis of DCD: DSM‐IV and MABC test < 15th percentile or BOTMP < 1.5 SD. Presence and absence of comorbid conditions: children were excluded if they had major comorbid medical problems, such as moderate‐to‐severe mental disability, profound visual or hearing impairment, or any major behavioural problems. 3 children had attention deficit hyperactive disorder and 4 children had dyslexia. However, there was no significant difference in the numbers allocated to each group. Regarding participants completing the study Age: 6 to 12 years. Sex: 15 boys, 7 girls. Ethnicity: no information. Country: China. Setting: outpatient unit in a hospital. Sociodemographics: no information. Inclusion criteria Diagnosis of DCD according to DSM‐IV. MABC test < 15th percentile or BOTMP < 1.5 SD. Aged 6 to 12 years. Exclusion criteria Treatment for motor problems in the previous 6 months. Major comorbid medical problems.
Interventions	Comparison: core stability programme vs task‐oriented motor programme (active control). Intervention schedule: 1 hr once/wk. Duration of intervention: 8 wk. Mode of delivery: face‐to‐face individual or group (not explicitly stated) sessions with daily home programme. Intervention material: Core stability programme: physio ball. Core stability exercises (supine, prone, sitting, and standing positions with instructions to focus on co‐contracting the abdominal and back muscles to maintain the spine in a neutral position. Task‐oriented motor programme: focus on training functional tasks, which included those that involved mainly body stability (e.g. standing) and those that required body transport (e.g. walking, running, jumping, hopping, skipping, and galloping). Intervention procedure: both groups commenced and ended with 5‐min warm‐up and cool‐down involving stretching. Both groups increased over time the complexity of the tasks, number of repetitions, and duration of each exercise/activity and reduced the level of assistance or guidance. Intervention provider: physiotherapist (10 years' paediatric experience). Place of intervention: paediatric physiotherapy outpatient unit, local hospital. Compliance: attendance rate not significantly different between groups (mean (± SD): core stability 6.2 (± 1.2) sessions; task‐oriented 6.8 (± 1.0) sessions). Compliance with the home exercise programme was also not significantly different between groups (mean (± SD): core stability 2.9 (± 2.2) days/wk and task‐oriented 1.8 (± 0.6) days/wk).
Outcomes	Primary BOTMP Second Edition (BOT‐2). Secondary SOT. Adverse effects or events: no information. Measures of participation: no information.
Notes	Study start date: April 2010. Study completion date: December 2011. Sample calculation: yes. Ethics approval: yes, from the ethics committee of the local University and the Institutional Review Board of the local hospital. Comments from study authors Limitations: use of BOT‐2 short form; use of SOT for postural control; no participation measure; small sample size, short‐term intervention. Key conclusions of study authors The core stability exercise program is as effective as task‐oriented training in improving motor proficiency among children with DCD. Comment from review authors Email correspondence with study authors: April and May 2016. We wrote to the authors twice to request supplementary information on data but received no reply.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Drawing lots.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Sealed opaque envelopes.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Impossible.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Blinded to group assignment.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	1 withdrawal from each group for not being able to commit the time.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Protocol identified (ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01207544).
Other bias	Low risk	Funding: research not funded by any specific grant from funding agency. Conflicts of interest: study authors, who worked for Physiotherapy Departments of hospitals and Department of Rehabilitation Sciences at Polytechnic University, indicated no conflicts of interest.