Study	Reason for exclusion
Akinwuntan 2010	Study does not include a neglect population. It is a study of 3 types of attention problems (selective attention, divided attention, speed of processing) that would affect driving ability. Refers to visual problems but these are not neglect. No neglect measures are used.
Al Mahasneh 1991	Extreme difficulties with recruitment and participant attrition. 14 participants with neglect consented. These were unevenly assigned to the experimental (9) and control (5) groups. Only 5 participants completed 3 weeks of treatment. Review authors did not feel the data were adequate for meta‐analysis, e.g. missing data and no SDs.
Bar‐Haim 2011	The method of allocation was not fully randomised. Clarification from the author stated "the first individual was assigned randomly to 1 of the 3 groups (by assigning numbers to the groups, 1‐3, and drawing a number for that patient). From that on each new participant was assigned to the next group consecutively".
Beis 1999	Controlled trial but not RCT: allocation by fixed order of presentation of participants i.e. first to group 1, second to group 2, etc. Outcome assessors were blinded to allocation. Personal communication provided FIM data, confirmed allocation method, and that assessments were carried out by 2 blinded researchers.
Butter 1992	Clarification of randomisation sought but not obtained. Appropriate results (means and SDs) not reported. Review authors were not sure that the trial was actually evaluating a treatment for spatial neglect.
Carter 1980	Clarification of randomisation sought but not obtained. Separate data for stroke patients also requested but not obtained. Appropriate data (means, SDs) not reported.
Cubelli 1993	Identified as a potential RCT of spatial neglect for the 2006 version. As further information could not be obtained, this was added to studies awaiting classification. As further details have still not been obtained for this 2012 version it has been moved to Excluded studies. We will reconsider this study for inclusion if further information becomes available.
Diller 1974	Reported data inadequate for review. No reply to our letter of 9 February 1999 asking for difficult‐to‐extract data.
EEG‐NF 2009	Not a cognitive rehabilitation approach.
Frassinetti 2002	Controlled clinical trial: non‐random allocation (n = 13). Controls at different hospital. Assessment of outcome not clear (probably non‐blind).
Gordon 1985	Controlled trial: quasi‐randomisation based on rehabilitation service to which participant was assigned. Experimental and control conditions alternated every 6 months between the 2 services. Not randomised.
Harvey 2003	Controlled trial: non‐randomised, initial recruits allocated by date of admission to hospital ward, later recruits allocated by attempting to match the groups on their scores on pre‐intervention neglect assessments. Author provided clarification and unpublished data by personal communication.
Keller 2006	Although the English abstract states that participants were "randomly assigned", the full German paper does not state random allocation and it appears that this study is not a randomised study.
Kerkhoff 2005	Not randomised. States that participants were "consecutively collected and matched for clinical and demographic variables as well as neglect severity" and "all subjects were treated in a single‐subject baseline design".
Kerkhoff 2012b	The intervention involved one single treatment session (i.e. this was not a rehabilitation programme).
Klos 2005	Personal communication from an expert in the field reported that Klos had completed an unpublished RCT of prism adaptation therapy for neglect. Excluded from review as no reply to request for clarification of methods and data. Will reconsider for inclusion in next update if further information becomes available.
Koch 2012	θ‐burst stimulation not classed as a cognitive rehabilitation approach.
Lincoln 1985	RCT of patients with general perceptual problems. Problems likely to have included neglect but this subgroup could not be separately identified.
Loverro 1988	Controlled trial: reported as randomly assigned but allocation based on bed availability; outcome assessors blinded to purpose of the study.
Niemeier 1998	Controlled trial: not randomised, selected in order of consecutive admissions and on documented left or right neglect. No information on concealment.
Osawa 2010	No mention of randomisation and appears that the group allocation was based on whether they happened to have family or not.
Paolucci 1996	Controlled trial: abstract states randomly assigned but allocated on the basis of bed number (odd or even), bed number had been assigned by Hospital Administration, odd numbers got immediate training, even numbers got training after 2 months (delayed training), neglect screening assessment done after allocation by psychologist unaware of purpose of study, outcome assessor blinded to the purpose of the study, after eight weeks the delayed group received the training and the immediate group received the control treatment (broad cognitive stimulation).
Pizzamiglio 2004	Non‐random controlled trial (n = 22): alternate allocation. Blind assessment of outcome on BI (functional outcome). Not clear if outcome assessed blind on impairment measures.
Rossetti 1998	Controlled trial: further data from author confirms it was not randomised. First 6 consecutive cases were allocated to experimental group and next 6 to control. Outcome assessors were not blinded. The trial is the second of 2 experiments reported in the paper.
Schindler 2002	Non‐randomised cross‐over controlled trial. First 10 participants were randomised to 1 of 2 groups but the data on these 10 were not available at the time of this version of this review. It would be considered for inclusion at the next update if the authors could provide the randomised data.
Serino 2006	Not randomised.
Serino 2009	Non‐randomised controlled trial. After the first 5 participants allocation is by alternation in blocks of 4.
Song 2009	Does not fall into the categories of cognitive rehabilitation intervention included within this review. Investigates low‐frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS).
Tham 1997	Non‐random controlled trial. First 7 participants assigned to novel treatment group, second 7 participants to conventional treatment group.
Toglia 2009	It is a randomised controlled trial of assessment methods ‐ dynamic versus static.
Trudell 2003	A published abstract suggested this may be an eligible study. Excluded from review as no information with which to confirm methods. We will reconsider it for inclusion in next update if further information becomes available.
Van Os 1991	Not randomised (confirmed by native Dutch speaker).
Webster 2001	Controlled clinical trial: 40 assigned, 1 excluded and matched participant excluded, n = 38. 20 controls were from a previous study, not simultaneous. Non‐blind assessment of outcome. Wheelchair navigation (functional measure) as outcome, no impairment measures.
Weinberg 1979	Clarification of randomisation procedure sought but not obtained, and unlikely to be given the age of this article. The timescale of publication (and a statement in the results) suggests the participants in this study were not in the Weinberg 1977 study; however, this has not been confirmed by the authors. On the other hand the 1979 paper does not explicitly mention 'neglect' and may instead be a trial of visual perception. Given the amount of uncertainty about this study's fit to the inclusion criteria, inability to obtain confirmation and clarification about this old study, lack of detail on randomisation and concern to avoid duplicating data by including this and the 1977 article we decided to exclude the 1979 article from this version of the review.
Weinberg 1982	Confirmation regarding randomisation sought from trialist but not obtained. No SD reported.
Young 1983	Controlled trial: not randomised. Divided into 3 groups matched for age, education, time since onset and degree of deficit: no further information provided other than assessor blinded to group's membership.

BI: Barthel Index
 FIM: Functional Independence Measure
 RCT: randomised controlled trial
 SD: standard deviation