Cauraugh 2002

Methods	Randomised controlled trial Random assignment with restriction that 20 participants were tested in the 2 treatment groups Method of randomisation and allocation concealment not stated
Participants	25 participants Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of CVA and no more than two CVAs on same side of brain, upper limit of 80% motor recovery (EMG activation patterns compared with non‐affected upper limb), lower limit of 10° voluntary wrist or finger extension against gravity, no other neurological deficits, no pacemaker, no use of drugs for spasticity, not enrolled in any other rehabilitation protocol
Interventions	Group 1 (10 participants): unilateral + EMG‐triggered stimulation wrist/finger extension Group 2 (10 participants): bilateral + EMG‐triggered stimulation wrist/finger extension Each group completed 3 sets of 30 successful EMG‐triggered neuromuscular stimulation trials (approximately 1 hour 30 minutes); in total 6 hours of training (4 days) were completed during 2 weeks Profession of individual(s) administrating training unclear
Outcomes	Primary outcome: functional movement: BBT Secondary outcome: motor impairment ‐ temporal outcomes: reaction time for speed of information processing and rapid muscle onset (simple reaction time, premotor reaction time and chronometric motor reaction time) ‐ premotor reaction time selected for use in analysis; strength outcomes: muscle activity (EMG activity of wrist/fingers extensor muscles)
Notes	Control group (did not receive the neuromuscular electric stimulation or bilateral assistance for the wrist/fingers extensors); 5 participants not included in the analysis Unable to use presented data for BBT within analysis as no standard deviations presented Means from graph were estimated and presented in results section Pre‐motor reaction time was chosen for inclusion as temporal outcome as medians and standard deviations presented and therefore could be included in statistical pooling of results Medians imputed as mean values 2 participants were excluded from analyses due to extreme reaction times: it was unclear from the paper which groups these participants were in, therefore analysis for reaction time based on 18 participants (1 participant removed from bilateral and unilateral training groups respectively) For muscle activity (strength) unable to use presented data within analysis as median root mean square error presented with no standard deviations Medians from graph were estimated and presented in results section Data for this outcome based on 24 participants but unclear from which group of the 3 groups (control group not included in this review) the excluded participant was from
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Allocation concealment?	Unclear risk	Method of randomisation and allocation concealment not stated
Blinding of outcome assessor?	Unclear risk	Not stated
Intention to treat analysis?	Unclear risk	Not stated
Baseline similarity	Unclear risk	Demographic details between the groups not reported