Schroder 2008.

Methods	RCT. 3‐arm study Setting: Germany
Participants	30 right‐handed participants with right brain damage, moderate left neglect Experimental 1: n = 10, experimental 2: n = 10, control: n = 10 Number lost to follow‐up: none Adequacy of matching at baseline? Yes, no significant differences at baseline Mean age (mean (SD)): experimental 1: 68.4 , experimental 2: 60.6, control: 67.3 Sex (male/female): experimental 1: 7/3, experimental 2: 5/5, control: 6/4 Time post‐onset (mean (SD)): experimental 1: 43.8 (23.6), experimental 2: 24.6 (9.6), control: 36.2 (24.2) days Side of damage: right Method of diagnosing stroke: not stated Method of diagnosing neglect: NET (Neglect test, Fels & Geissner, 1996)  using subtests line cancellation, star cancellation, line bisection, figure copy and freehand drawing Neglect subtest from  'Testbatterie zur Aufmerksamkeitsprufung' (TAP) Reading test A from the electronic reading and exploration apparatus (ELEX) manual and writing a dictated sentence ('Heute ist ein schöner Tag') No details of cut‐offs provided Inclusion criteria: right‐handed, less than 90 days post‐stroke, left brain damage, at least moderate neglect Exclusion criteria: not stated Visual sensory deficit: not stated
Interventions	Visual Exploration and TENS: 20 therapy sessions, each lasting 25 to 40 minutes over 4 weeks (TENS: 100 Hz, over left trapezius, applied throughout exploration training) versus visual exploration and OKS 20 therapy sessions, each lasting 25 to 40 minutes over 4 weeks (OKS: small randomly spaced squares moving slowly to the left across a screen, 2 x 10 minute periods of OKS separated by 10 to 20 minutes exploration training) versus visual exploration (control) using the ELEX apparatus (stimuli patterns were presented on a screen that subtended 53° vertically and 40° horizontally: after initial fixation, participants had to shift fixation to a yellow stimulus) Profession of the intervention provider not stated For this review we classified this as a comparison of 1 cognitive rehabilitation approach versus another cognitive rehabilitation approach For analysis of bottom‐up and top‐down rehabilitation approaches this review coded the TENS and OKS as bottom‐up and the scanning training as top‐down For analyses, the groups including TENS and OKS were defined as 'Approach 1' and the visual exploration as 'Approach 2'
Outcomes	NET subtests: line cancellation, star cancellation, line bisection, figure copy, freehand drawing TAP: neglect subtest (composite values given) Reading test Writing dictated sentence (composite values given)
Notes	TENS: "a non‐specific activation of the right hemisphere or a directional effect on the egocentric coordinates of extrapersonal space" OKS "activates multiple cortical (temporoparietal and vestibular cortex, the insula) and subcortical structures (basal ganglia) involved in multisensory integration" For analyses this study was entered as 2 studies: Schroder 2008 OKS and Schroder 2008 TENS
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"Randomly assigned", no other details
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	For the few variables given, the groups appear comparable
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	None reported
Free of systematic differences in baseline characteristics of groups compared?	Unclear risk	No information provided
Did authors adjust for baseline differences in their analyses?	Low risk	Not required