Turton 2010.

Methods	RCT. Single‐blind, pilot, 2 sites Setting: UK
Participants	37 participants consented following screening but 1 person excluded post‐recruitment but pre‐randomisation for failing to complete assessments, so 36 randomised. Experimental: n = 17, control: n = 19 Adequacy of matching at baseline? Yes, although large variation in severity of neglect Number lost to follow‐up: overall 34 remained at 4 days and 28 at 8 weeks of the 36 randomised Mean age (mean (SD)): experimental 72 (14), control 71 (14) years Sex (male/female): experimental 8/8, control 11/7 Time post‐onset (mean (SD)): experimental 1 45 (23), control 47 (39) days Side of damage: right Method of diagnosing stroke: not specified Method of diagnosing neglect: star cancellation task and/or line bisection test of BIT Inclusion criteria: right hemisphere stroke, at least 20 days before entry to study; self‐care problems due to neglect identified by OT (from consecutive hospital admissions); ability to sit and point with the unaffected hand; ability to understand and follow instructions; medical fitness to participate Exclusion criteria: neglect prior to this stroke Visual sensory deficit: sensory score at baseline given Hemianopia: experimental 3/16, control 4/18 Assessed by Nottingham Sensory Assessment and confrontation
Interventions	Prism adaptation training (repeated pointing movements to targets using the right 'unaffected' hand while wearing prism glasses; prism power of 10 diopters that shifted the field of view 6° to the right; training once per day, each working day for 2 weeks) versus sham treatment (same pointing procedure wearing plain glasses) Once a day for each working day for 2 weeks 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	Conventional BIT subtests at 4 days and 8 weeks, completed  by OT CBS at 8 weeks "Motor and sensory deficits and general independence in ADLs" using motoricity index (contralesional limbs), adapted Nottingham Sensory Assessment, visual field loss using confrontation, BI by participant's OT (so presumably this 1 measure was unblinded)
Notes	Conflict between proprioception and vision occurs when pointing wearing prisms and they mis‐point to the right and there is subsequent adaptation. "Treatment triggers a realignment of the egocentric coordinate system that is responsible for the localisation of the body in space and of object position in relation to the body" Therapy and control were well tolerated, with only 1% and 3% respectively of sessions missed by participants due to illness
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"A minimisation method using a 4:1 element of chance was implemented and automated using Microsoft Excel for pseudo‐random allocation to groups" "A secretary who was located outside of the stroke services administered the randomisation procedure"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"Outcome assessments were carried out with assessors blind to group allocation"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Drop‐outs accounted for
Free of systematic differences in baseline characteristics of groups compared?	Unclear risk	The are a number of differences in baseline demographics and variation in these demographics between the groups, and the median BIT was 21 points higher for controls
Did authors adjust for baseline differences in their analyses?	Unclear risk	There was no adjustment of the baseline differences, but the impact of the differences in baseline demographics are unclear