Tsai 2012.

Methods	Quasi‐RCT.
Participants	Number screened: 368. Number included: 52 (30 children with DCD who were quasi‐randomised plus 22 typically developing children). Number followed up: 52. Number of withdrawals: 0. Diagnosis of DCD: DSM‐IV. Presence and absence of comorbid conditions: children were excluded if they had comorbid conditions that may impact on the tests or intervention. Regarding participants completing the study Age: overall range 9 to 10 years: DCD soccer training (mean ± SD): 116.81 ± 5.37 months; DCD inactive control (mean ± SD): 114.00 ± 3.68 months). Sex: DCD soccer training (9 boys and 7 girls); DCD inactive control (9 boys and 5 girls); non‐DCD control (12 boys and 10 girls). Ethnicity: Taiwanese. Potentially very low rate of aborigine.* Country: Taiwan. Setting: Primary schools.* Sociodemographics: urban residents of Kaohsiung.* Inclusion criteria MABC test < 5th percentile. Parents' and teachers' report on the impact of motor inco‐ordination on academic achievement and activities of daily living. Exclusion criteria Definite signs of special educational needs, physical or behavioural problems, or evident neurological damage. ADHD identified by a brief behaviour rating scaled based on DSM‐IV criteria for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Interventions	Intervention: DCD soccer training vs DCD inactive control vs non‐DCD inactive control. Intervention schedule: 50 min at 5/wk for 10 wk. Duration of intervention: 10 wk.* Mode of delivery: face‐to‐face group sessions. Intervention material: soccer balls, obstacles, goal posts. Intervention procedure: warm‐up, main part of soccer training, playing a game, cool down. emphasis first on general skills and then on task‐specific skills. Intervention provider: trained soccer coach. Place of intervention: school. Intervention compliance: no absence. All enjoyed participation.*
Outcomes	Primary MABC test. Secondary Visuospatial Attention Task. Event‐related potential indices of the attention network. Adverse effects or events: none reported by the instructor.* Measures of participation: not reported.
Notes	Study start date: not available. Study end date: not available. Sample calculation: no. Ethics approval: yes. Comments from study authors Limitations:* DCD was not diagnosed by medical doctors; long‐term intervention effects are unknown. Key conclusions of study authors Soccer training could significantly facilitate the development of motor skills and improve inhibitory control and neuroelectric indices of attention networks. Comment from review authors A larger effect size of intervention outcome than other studies. This may be due to the quality and the high frequency of training or quasi‐RCT design. * Email correspondence with study authors: May 2014 and February 2016. We contacted the first study author several times and obtained raw data for meta‐analysis and supplementary information.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Quasi‐randomly subdivided. If consent was not forthcoming then the child was moved to the non‐training group. This is going against the randomisation process.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Randomisation was broken.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Single blind, but impossible to achieve double blind.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	After enquiry, the first author stated that blinding of outcome assessment ensured, and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	After enquiry, the first author stated no missing outcome data.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No protocol obtained. All prespecified outcomes of interest reported.
Other bias	Low risk	Funding: research funded by a grant from the National Science Council in Taiwan (NSC 99‐2314‐B‐006‐006‐MY2 and NSC 98‐2410‐H‐006‐106‐MY2). Conflicts of interest: no information available. Small numbers.