Comparison 3. Motor imagery versus other therapies (control): effect on functional mobility.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
3.1 Functional mobility	4	116	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.55 [‐0.45, 1.56]
3.1.1 Functional mobility ‐ Rivermead mobility index	1	34	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.34 [‐1.02, 0.34]
3.1.2 Functional mobility ‐ Timed Up and Go test	3	82	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.88 [‐0.38, 2.14]
3.2 Subgroup analysis: treatment dose	2	64	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.21 [‐0.85, 3.27]
3.2.1 More than 1000 minutes	1	36	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.19 [‐0.46, 0.85]
3.2.2 Less than 1000 minutes	1	28	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	2.30 [1.31, 3.28]
3.3 Functional mobility ‐ sensitivity analysis: studies without high risk of bias	2	62	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.95 [‐1.63, 3.54]
3.4 Functional mobility ‐ sensitivity analysis: without peripheral studies	3	88	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.00 [‐0.42, 0.42]
3.5 Subgroup analysis: forms of application of MI	3	82	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.88 [‐0.38, 2.14]
3.5.1 Visual imagery	1	18	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.25 [‐0.68, 1.18]
3.5.2 Both visual and kinesthetic imagery	2	64	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.21 [‐0.85, 3.27]