Dickstein 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Full crossover
Participants	Group members met regularly twice a week at each center. After project explanation to each member group, volunteers were recruited to participate in the study Sample size: 16 Inclusion criteria: inclusion criteria were an age range of 30 to 70 years; a time gap of at least 3 months between the stroke and admission to the study; appropriate cognitive ability (Mini Mental State Examination score not lower than 24 points); ability to walk a minimal distance of 10 meters without stopping; absence of any medical condition that would prohibit participation; and absence of any communication problem that would interfere with participation Exclusion criteria: not reported by study authors Mean (SD) age: 63 (SD 7) years Stroke details: stroke territory ‐ anterior circulation = 14, vertebrobasilar = 2 AffectedbBody side: left: 10, right: 6. Type: thromboembolic = 14; hemorrhagic = 2 Stroke phase: chronic
Interventions	Experimental treatment: motor imagery practice of gait activities Control treatment: motor imagery practice of upper extremity functional movements
Outcomes	Outcomes were recorded at baseline, post‐intervention, and 5 weeks from treatment conclusion Walking speed: 10 Meter Walk Test, vertical ground reaction forces, measured via the 'Smart Step' system; Tinetti Mobility Test (gait score) Pain, falls, and all‐cause deaths: Activities‐specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Quote: “The order of assignment to the experimental and the control treatments during the first period was determined by the order of admission to the study"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Quote: “The order of assignment to the experimental and the control treatments during the first period was determined by the order of admission to the study”
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: “Two physical therapists served as group instructors in each center, with one instructing the experimental treatment and the other the control treatment. General plans for the exercise regimens in the two centers were established during a workshop that preceded the study"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: “Pre‐intervention, post‐intervention, and follow‐up measurements were performed in each center by one evaluator, who was a senior physical therapist that did not participate in the application of the treatments and was blind to the subjects’ treatment assignment"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Lost data balanced between groups and similar reasons
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Differences found between these values at the pre‐ and post‐interventions were not significant for either treatment modality. Likewise, no differences between the effects of the experimental and the control treatments were discerned for any of these tested variables (for all comparisons P > 01)
Other bias	Low risk	None detected