Hung 2010.

Methods	Single‐blind RCT.
Participants	Number screened: not reported. Number included: 23. Number followed up: 23. Number of withdrawals: 0. Diagnosis of DCD: DSM‐IV‐TR. Presence and absence of comorbid conditions: children were excluded if they had disruptive behaviour or sensory issues (visual or hearing). other comorbidities not reported. Regarding participants completing the study Age (mean ± SD): group‐based motor skill training (8 years 4 months ± 1 year 2 months), individual‐based motor skill training (7 years 8 months ± 1 year 2 months). Sex: group‐based motor skill training (10 boys, 2 girls), individual‐based motor skill training (9 boys, 2 girls). Ethnicity: no information. Country: China. Setting: Pediatric Physiotherapy Outpatient Department of Kowloon Hospital. Sociodemographics: urban residents of Kaohsiung.* Inclusion criteria Aged 6 to 10 years. BOTMP gross motor composite score < 42. Motor difficulties that significantly interfere with academic performance or activities of daily living. Motor difficulties that cannot be explained by any medical or neurological disorders. Intelligence level within the normal range. Exclusion criteria No current or prior physiotherapy or occupational therapy. Profound visual or hearing deficiencies that could not be corrected by external devices. Excessive disruptive behaviour. MABC test > 15th percentile.
Interventions	Comparison: group‐based motor skill training vs individual‐based motor skill training. Intervention schedule: 45 min/wk. Duration of intervention: 8 wk. Mode of delivery: face‐to‐face individual (1:1) versus group (4:1 to 6:1) training plus home exercises to reinforce the session. Intervention material: trampoline, rope, obstacles, balance beam, uneven surfaces, therapy ball, balls, beanbags. Intervention procedure: motor training sessions in either group had same structure and components (agility and balance, core stability, bilateral co‐ordination, eye‐hand and eye‐foot co‐ordination). Intervention provider: therapist. Place of intervention: Pediatric Physiotherapy Outpatient Department of Kowloon Hospital. Intervention compliance: 100% attendance, home exercise compliance using a logbook.
Outcomes	Primary MABC test. Secondary Parental satisfaction questionnaire. Adverse effects or events: none. Measures of participation: no information.
Notes	Study start date: not available. Study completion date: not available. Sample calculation: yes. Ethics approval: yes. Comments from study authors Limitations: small sample size; no measure of activity participation; no inactive control. Key conclusions of study authors Group‐based training and individual‐based training had a similar effect on motor performance. Group‐based training may be more cost‐effective than individual‐based training. Comment from review authors Active control only. Email correspondence with study authors: February 2014 and February 2016. We wrote to the authors and obtained raw data in 2014. In 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	Concealed envelope.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Independent to study.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Single‐blind, as double‐blind was impossible.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Outcome assessors blinded to group allocation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All completed and reported.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No protocol obtained. All prespecified outcomes of interest reported.
Other bias	Low risk	Funding: research funded by Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Conflicts of interest: no information available. Small numbers.