Tsang 2009.

Methods	RCT Setting: Hong Kong
Participants	35 participants (1 drop‐out during the trial) Experimental: n = 17, control n = 17 Adequacy of matching at baseline? Yes Number lost to follow‐up: 1; no details as to which group ‐ no data included in analyses Mean age (mean (SD)): experimental 70.47 (9.30), control 71.82 (5.26) years Sex (male/female): experimental 12/5, control 9/8 Time post‐onset (mean (SD)): experimental 22.18 (15.87), control 21.50 (21.67) days Side of damage: right (experimental right 11, basal ganglia 0, other 6; control right 11, basal ganglia 2, other 4) Method of diagnosing stroke: CT or MRI Method of diagnosing neglect: BIT conventional subtest < 129 Inclusion criteria: subacute inpatients with right hemisphere stroke, undergoing rehabilitation, left visual field inattention, right‐handed, within 8 weeks after onset of stroke, Glasgow coma scale = 15 Exclusion criteria: severe dysphasia, TIA or reversible neurological deficit; significant impairment in visual acuity caused by cataracts, diabetic retinopathy, and glaucoma; history of other neurological disease, psychiatric disorder, or alcoholism Visual sensory deficit: visual acuity screened for, no other method of assessing visual fields etc noted
Interventions	Right half‐field eye patching glasses: 4 weeks of conventional OT with right half‐field eye‐patching during OT session (conventional OT = 30 minutes ADL training and 30 minutes upper limb training using neurodevelopmental therapy ‐ this seems to be  the standard procedure, rather than a record of what participants actually got, there was no mention of deviation from this amount. Other standard care received was 5 physiotherapy sessions of 60 minutes/week, speech and language therapy and psychological counselling as indicated, skilled nursing care, daily medical round) versus control (4 weeks of conventional OT as described above, without patching. Other standard care received was 5 physiotherapy sessions of 60 minutes/week, speech and language therapy and psychological counselling as indicated, skilled nursing care, daily medical round) Profession of intervention provider: OT For analysis of bottom‐up and top‐down rehabilitation approaches this review coded the experimental condition as bottom‐up
Outcomes	BIT conventional subtest FIM
Notes	"Concentrates the patients' attention on the contralesional space by blocking the ipsilesional visual field, and hence lessens the disinhibition of the orienting mechanism of the ipsilesional side resulting from interhemispheric imbalance".
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Patients were randomly assigned, by a designated person ... using consecutively numbered sealed envelopes for each group (according to random permuted blocks of four that were derived from the block of 4 randomisation table)." The designated person was the case therapist and envelopes were prepared by a different person ‐ an OT
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Corresponence with the author states "An occupational therapist, who was the blinded assessor and did not know the group allocation, was responsible for all the outcome measures, both pre and posttests"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	1 participant dropped out but was not included in the analysis. Both baseline and outcome assessments only include the 34 who completed the study. Therefore no intention‐to‐treat analysis
Free of systematic differences in baseline characteristics of groups compared?	Low risk	Study is free from systematic differences
Did authors adjust for baseline differences in their analyses?	Low risk	Not necessary