Tezuka 2006

Methods	Randomised cross‐over trial
Participants	Country: Japan Sample size: 15 participants (9 in mirror therapy group; 6 dropped out, 4 during the first interval) Inclusion criteria: patients admitted or planned to be admitted to rehabilitation ward on the hospital due to post‐stroke hemiparesis; within 1 month post‐stroke; informed consent was obtained from the patient and their family Exclusion criteria: higher brain dysfunction
Interventions	2 arms: mirror therapy: participants were instructed to move the non‐paretic arm while looking in the mirror and passive movement of the paretic arm provided by therapist passive arm movements: using only passive movements of the affected arm without a mirror 1 and 2: 10 to 15 minutes per day for 4 weeks, followed by 4 weeks vice versa
Outcomes	Outcomes were recorded at baseline and after 4 weeks of therapy FM wrist and fingers motor score (0 to 24)
Notes	We only analysed the first intervention period of 4 weeks
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer generated allocation to groups
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Stated by authors (unpublished information)
ITT analysis	High risk	Stated by authors (unpublished information)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) primary outcome	Low risk	Assessors were blinded to group allocation