Yao 2014.

Methods	RCT Method of randomisation: random number table Blinding: not stated Adverse effects: not stated ITT analysis: not stated Losses to FU: not stated
Participants	Country: China Number of participants included: 90 (30/30/30) Demographics: 54% male Type of stroke: both ischaemic and haemorrhagic strokes Diagnosis: WHO definition and all confirmed by CT/MRI Severity on entry: not stated Time from stroke onset: 1‐12 months Setting: inpatient Comparability: no significant difference in age or time post onset
Interventions	Comparison eligible: routine acupuncture + PT versus PT only Acupuncture treatment Acupuncture rationale: not stated Needling details Points used: both body and scalp acupoints Numbers of points used: 15 points Depths of insertion: not stated Deqi elicited: yes Needle stimulation: manual and electrical Needle retention time: 30 minutes Needle type: stainless steel needle, length 1.57 inches Treatment regimen Number of treatment sessions: 24 sessions Frequency of treatment: 3 sessions/week Total course: 8 weeks Practitioner background: not stated Co‐intervention: PT Control interventions: PT
Outcomes	Improvement of motor function (Fugl‐Meyer Motor Assessment) Improvement of neurological function (Neurological Deficit Score) Improvement of independence (Barthel Index) Improvement of pain (Visual Analogue Score) FU: 8 weeks
Notes	‐
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation by using random number table
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	Unclear risk	Information on blinding was not reported
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