Brueggen 2017.

Methods	A controlled partial‐randomised design trial comparing CT with a group cognitive rehabilitation intervention (active control group) in persons with AD dementia
Participants	20 community‐dwelling participants with probable or possible AD according to NINCDS‐ADRDA criteria who were living in Germany. Age range of participants was 53 to 83, and all had received over 10 years of education
Interventions	Participants in the intervention condition (n = 8) received standardised CT in the form of a single daily task that participants had to complete by themselves in the form of homework. Participants met with researchers every 4 weeks to evaluate the homework Participants in the control condition (n = 10) were trained on a cognitive rehabilitation programme that was based on a manual‐guided approach combining neuropsychological and psychotherapeutic elements (CORDIAL). A psychologist and an occupational therapist delivered the intervention Both interventions lasted 3 months
Outcomes	Study authors stated that the change from baseline in capacity to perform activities of daily living was their primary outcome Secondary outcomes included cognitive abilities related to daily living (such as everyday memory abilities and planning and organizational skills), functional cognitive state, and non‐cognitive outcomes including depression, consciousness, neurobehavioural disturbance, and caregiver burden Assessments were conducted at baseline and after the interventions were finished
Country	Germany
Registration status	Prospectively registered
Conflict of Interests	Not stated
Notes	Study authors designed the CT intervention group as the comparison group. For the purpose of this review, the CT group was selected as the experimental group Two participants cancelled their participation before the intervention was started (CT group) Study authors advised that the trial had been prospectively registered and provided a table with follow‐up scores upon request
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	"Five subjects originated from a pilot trial waiting group and were already predetermined for the intervention group" "We conducted a partial‐randomization to assign the remaining subjects using a computer‐based balanced randomisation"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Some participants already knew they were going to participate in the intervention group
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Study authors did not mention blinding of participants. CT was compared to an alternative treatment, so blinding may have been possible
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Study authors provided no details to suggest that outcome assessment was blind. It is likely that this was not the case
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Two participants allocated to the intervention dropped out before commencing treatment, and 2 participants allocated to the control condition dropped out during the intervention period; reasons seem to be unrelated. However, analyses were carried out without their baseline data; the impact of this is unknown, given the small sample size
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	We were able to obtain all scores with the exception of the NPI upon request
Other bias	Low risk	We did not detect any other major sources of bias