| Study |
Bias |
| Randomisation process |
Deviations from intended interventions |
Missing outcome data |
Measurement of the outcome |
Selection of the reported results |
Overall |
| Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Subgroup 2.2.1 Functional impairment |
| Harver 1989 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
High risk of bias |
missingness in each group was not mentioned. |
Low risk of bias |
A sham was used. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, missingness, and only the journal article is available. |
| Weiner 2003 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Participants were blinded. |
High risk of bias |
data in the graph are different from what was reported in the text. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, only the journal article is available and data in the graphs are different from the text. |
| Wu 2017 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
High risk of bias |
Participants were not blinded. |
Some concerns |
There are some differences between the trial register and the journal article. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process,probably participant were not blinded and there are differences in reporting blinding between the trial register and journal article. |
| Wu 2017 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
High risk of bias |
Participants were not blinded. |
Some concerns |
There are some differences between the trial register and the journal article. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process,probably participant were not blinded and there are differences in reporting blinding between the trial register and journal article. |
| Subgroup 2.2.2 Magnitude of task |
| Harver 1989 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
High risk of bias |
missingness in each group was not mentioned. |
Low risk of bias |
A sham was used. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, missingness, and only the journal article is available. |
| Weiner 2003 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Participants were blinded. |
High risk of bias |
data in the graph are different from what was reported in the text. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, only the journal article is available and data in the graphs are different from the text. |
| Wu 2017 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
High risk of bias |
Participants were not blinded. |
Some concerns |
There are some differences between the trial register and the journal article. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process,probably participant were not blinded and there are differences in reporting blinding between the trial register and journal article. |
| Wu 2017 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
High risk of bias |
Participants were not blinded. |
Some concerns |
There are some differences between the trial register and the journal article. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process,probably participant were not blinded and there are differences in reporting blinding between the trial register and journal article. |
| Subgroup 2.2.3 Magnitude of effort |
| Harver 1989 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
High risk of bias |
missingness in each group was not mentioned. |
Low risk of bias |
A sham was used. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, missingness, and only the journal article is available. |
| Weiner 2003 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Participants were blinded. |
High risk of bias |
data in the graph are different from what was reported in the text. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, only the journal article is available and data in the graphs are different from the text. |
| Wu 2017 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
High risk of bias |
Participants were not blinded. |
Some concerns |
There are some differences between the trial register and the journal article. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process,probably participant were not blinded and there are differences in reporting blinding between the trial register and journal article. |
| Wu 2017 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
High risk of bias |
Participants were not blinded. |
Some concerns |
There are some differences between the trial register and the journal article. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process,probably participant were not blinded and there are differences in reporting blinding between the trial register and journal article. |
| Subgroup 2.2.4 Focal score |
| Chuang 2017 |
Some concerns |
Only a statement about randomisation was reported, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
No participants were excluded based on the intervention received. |
High risk of bias |
Missingness is likely to be dependant on its true value. |
High risk of bias |
Participants were not blinded. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, participants were not blinded and only the journal article is available. |
| Harver 1989 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
High risk of bias |
missingness in each group was not mentioned. |
Low risk of bias |
A sham was used. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, missingness, and only the journal article is available. |
| Langer 2018 |
Low risk of bias |
Allocation was random, concealed, and baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Participants were blinded. |
Low risk of bias |
No differences between the trial register, the conference abstracts and the journal article. |
Low risk of bias |
No detected issues with the five domains. |
| Lisboa 1997 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Participants were blinded. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about allocation concealment and only the journal article is available. |
| Sanchez Riera 2001 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Participants were blinded. |
High risk of bias |
Adjusted analysis were conducted only for the training group. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process and adjusted analysis were conducted only for the training group. |
| Scherer 2000 |
Some concerns |
No information about allocation concealment, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
One participant excluded due to rip fracture. |
Low risk of bias |
missingness was balanced between the two groups. |
Low risk of bias |
Participants were blinded. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, only the journal article is available and missingness could be dependent on its true value. |
| Weiner 2003 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and the two groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Participants were blinded. |
High risk of bias |
data in the graph are different from what was reported in the text. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, only the journal article is available and data in the graphs are different from the text. |
| Wu 2017 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
High risk of bias |
Participants were not blinded. |
Some concerns |
There are some differences between the trial register and the journal article. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process,probably participant were not blinded and there are differences in reporting blinding between the trial register and journal article. |
| Wu 2017 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence, and both groups had similar baseline characteristics. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
High risk of bias |
Participants were not blinded. |
Some concerns |
There are some differences between the trial register and the journal article. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process,probably participant were not blinded and there are differences in reporting blinding between the trial register and journal article. |
