Naeser 1992.

Methods	RCT Method of randomisation: not stated Blinding: participants blinded Adverse effects: not stated ITT analysis: not stated Losses to FU: not stated
Participants	Country: USA Number of participants included: 16 (10/6) Demographics: aged 44‐74 years Type of stroke: ischaemic only Diagnosis: all confirmed by CT Severity on entry: moderate Time from stroke onset: 1‐3 months Setting: inpatients Comparability: no significant difference in age or time post onset
Interventions	Comparison: real acupuncture + daily PT versus sham acupuncture + daily PT Acupuncture treatment Acupuncture rationale: not stated Needling details Points used: both body and scalp acupoints Numbers of points used: 11 body acupoints; numbers of scalp acupoints unclear Depths of insertion: unclear Deqi elicited: unclear Needle stimulation: electrical stimulation with frequency 1‐2 Hz and amplitude unknown Needle retention time: 20 minutes Needle type: gauge 34#, length and material unknown Treatment regimen Number of treatment sessions: 20 sessions Frequency of treatment: 5 sessions/week Total course: 4 weeks Practitioner background: not stated Co‐intervention: PT Control interventions Sham Acupuncture + PT
Outcomes	Number of participants with improvement in motor function (BMIT) within 5 days after completing treatment FU: 35 days
Notes	‐
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The method of random sequence generation was not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Information on allocation concealment was not reported
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Information on blinding was not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "The sham acupuncture was done only on the non‐paralyzed upper extremity and lower extremity. The patients were told that in China acupuncture is used on the non‐paralysed side to treat the paralysed side. They were further told that the stimulation was low level, and they would not feel anything"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Information on blinding was not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Information on attrition was not reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Free of selective reporting bias was assessed as 'unclear' due to some clinically important outcomes unstated, such as quality of life, mortality and adverse events
Other bias	Unclear risk	No information provided