Wilson 2016.

Methods	Blocked RCT in an unblinded trial.
Participants	Number screened: not stated. Number included: 42. Number followed up: 36. Number of withdrawals: 6. Diagnosis of DCD: no information. Presence and absence of comorbid conditions: children excluded if they had current or history of neurological disease, including head injury, psychiatric disorders, or attention‐deficit disorder. Regarding participants completing the study Age: 7 to 12 years. Sex: no information. Ethnicity: no information. Country: Australia. Setting: assessment conducted at schools, and training interventions provided in the Centre for Movement Education and Research, Griffith University. Sociodemographics: no information. Inclusion criteria Physical education teachers' identification of displayed poor motor co‐ordination, given age and intelligence that interfered with academic achievement or activities of daily living. Parental consent to assess using MABC test. MABC test < 10th percentile. Exclusion criteria Current or history of neurological disease, including head injury, psychiatric disorders, or attention‐deficit disorder.
Interventions	Comparison: image training vs traditional perceptual‐motor training vs inactive control. Intervention schedule of traditional perceptual‐motor training programme: 60 min once/wk. Duration of intervention: 5 wk. Mode of delivery: face‐to‐face individual sessions. Intervention material: Image training: six fundamental motor skills: catching and throwing a tennis ball, striking a softball, jumping, balancing a ball on a bat while walking, and placing objects on a form board. Traditional perceptual‐motor training: various static and dynamic balance activities using hoops, low beams, fit balls, ropes, and mini trampoline, minor ball games, pegboard games,origami, and drawing activities. Intervention procedure: Image training: visual imagery exercises, relaxation protocol and mental preparation, mental rehearsal of skills from external and internal perspectives, mental rehearsal displayed on a LCD monitor. Traditional perceptual‐motor training: approach was collaborative and child centred. Intervention provider: trained research assistant/therapist Place of intervention: no information. Compliance: no information.
Outcomes	Primary MABC test. Adverse effects or events: no information. 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: the inactive control did not match the engagement of an interested adult in the child's progress; the intervention effects on participation in recreational, educational and cultural activities were not examined. Key conclusions of study authors Five‐hour motor image training can yield strong treatment effect. Imagery training is as effective as traditional perceptual‐motor training. Action observation is an important aspect of the motor imagery training when provided at regular intervals. Comment from review authors Email correspondence with study authors: May 2017. 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)	High risk	Not stated. No reply to enquiry.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not stated. No reply to enquiry.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Impossible
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	All children were assessed and trained individually under one of the three training conditions.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Six of 42 children (14%) from unspecified groups dropped out of the study due to competing family commitments.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No protocol obtained. However, this study is a replication of Wilson 2002, meaning that the method of the previous study served as a protocol.
Other bias	Low risk	Funding: no information available. Conflicts of interest: no information available. Baseline imbalance.

BOTMP: Bruininks‐Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency; COPM: Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; CO‐OP: Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance; CTA: contemporary treatment approach; DCD: developmental co‐ordination disorder; DCDQ: Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire; DSM‐IV: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition; GPDC: Goal‐Plan‐Do‐Check; hr: hour; ID: identifier; LCD: liquid crystal display; MABC: Movement Assessment Battery for Children; min: minute; RCT: randomised controlled trial; SD: standard deviation; SOT: Sensory Organization Test; TGMD: Test of Gross Motor Development; TKD: Taekwondo; wk: week.