Pless 2000b.

Methods	Single‐blind, quasi‐RCT.
Participants	Number screened: 100. Number included: 37. Number followed up: 37. Number of withdrawals: 0. Diagnosis of DCD: DSM IV and MABC test < 15th percentile. Presence and absence of comorbid conditions: children with a neurological or behavioural disorder were excluded. Regarding participants completing the study Age: 5 to 6 years. Sex: 26 boys, 11 girls. Ethnicity: no information. Country: Sweden. Setting: 3 different centres in Uppsala Primary Health Care and a room at the University hospital. Sociodemographics: no information. Inclusion criteria Aged 5 to 6 years. MABC test < 15th percentile. Failure in ≥ 2 of the items of the Motor Screening Test. Absence of mental retardation. Exclusion criteria None stated.
Interventions	Comparison: motor skill intervention vs inactive control. Intervention schedule: 45‐min session/wk for 10 wk, no information on the length of each session. Duration of intervention: 6 months. Mode of delivery: face‐to‐face group sessions. Intervention material: wall bars, a horizontal bar, a box horse, carpets, flying rings, skipping ropes, balls in an obstacle course. Intervention procedure: children practised on gymnastic apparatus in an obstacle course. At the end of a session they played a game together. Intervention provider: physical educator. Place of intervention: gymnastic hall at a school. Intervention compliance: physical educator in the group motor skill intervention noted on a score sheet at each session whether the child had attended the session and to what degree each child had participated in the activities during the session (we used a simple scale stating 0 = did not participate in the activities, 1 = participated in < 10% of the activities, 2 = partly participated in 10% to 100% of the session, 3 = participated in all the activities). The sessions were very popular and since the number of children were few in the group and the parents also attended and helped all children who were rated as 3 in all sessions.*
Outcomes	Primary MABC test. Secondary MABC checklist. Questionnaire‐physical activity. Adverse effects or events: none.*
Notes	Study start date: not available. Study completion date: not available. Sample calculation: no. Ethics approval: yes, from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Uppsala (No 219/95).* Comments from study authors Limitation: small number. Key conclusions of study authors Group motor skill intervention may have positive effects in children with DCD with borderline motor difficulties. For children with definite motor difficulties, more specific and individualised intervention is required in a 1‐to‐1 setting. Comment from review authors A 4‐month follow‐up assessment was initially planned but cancelled. * Email correspondence with study authors: January 2016. We wrote to the first author, who provided supplementary information.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	First boy and first girl randomised to either group and then allocated in turn to other group.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Not stated.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not stated and also not possible.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	MABC motor test carried out by an independent rater (MP); the first author (MP) assessed the children before any intervention, and again after 6 months. In response to our inquiry, the author wrote: "I did not know at any time whether they were attending the Group Motor Skill Intervention or not."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Attrition rates not stated.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No protocol obtained. All prespecified outcomes of interest reported.
Other bias	Low risk	Funding: research partly funded by Uppsala University, the Vårdal Foundation in Stockholm, and the Gillberg Foundation in Uppsala, all in Sweden. Conflicts of interest: no information available. Noted small numbers and slight imbalance. Only 6‐month follow‐up assessment was analysed because most of the children in the intervention group had not finished the 10‐wk intervention.