Ang 2012.

Methods	Study design: RCT Number of dropouts: none Number of adverse effects: none (Ang 2015 [pers comm]) Deaths: none ITT: yes
Participants	Country: Singapore Sample size: 19 participants; mean age (SD) 54 (10) years; mean UE‐FM (SD) 34 (8) Inclusion criteria: not explicitly stated Exclusion criteria: history of seizures; major depression; implants that interfered with tDCS; being able to operate an EEG‐based motor imagery brain‐computer interface (MI‐BCI); further therapy aiming at improving function in the affected upper limb
Interventions	2 arms: Dual‐tDCS with the anode placed over M1 of the affected hemisphere and the cathode placed over M1 the unaffected hemisphere (1 mA for 20 minutes) followed by 8 minutes of evaluation and 60 minutes of therapy using EEG‐based MI‐BCI with robotic feedback with the MIT‐Manus device 5 times a week for 2 weeks Sham tDCS with the anode placed over M1 of the affected hemisphere and the cathode placed over M1 the unaffected hemisphere (1 mA for 30 seconds) followed by 8 minutes of evaluation and 60 minutes of therapy using EEG‐based MI‐BCI with robotic feedback with the MIT‐Manus device 5 times a week for 2 weeks
Outcomes	Outcomes were measured at baseline, at the end of intervention period at 2 weeks and at 2 week follow‐up: UE‐FM Online MI‐BCI performance event‐related desynchronisation laterality coefficient
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	People were randomised by "A randomization stratification generated using a computer‐generated random sequence" (Ang 2015 [pers comm])
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Interventions of the subjects were applied by an engineer and a research assistant respectively. For tDCS, the research assistant was the only person who knew the randomization sequence for the subjects allocation" (Ang 2015 [pers comm])
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Subjective outcome measures	Low risk	There were no subjective outcome measures
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Objective outcome measures	Low risk	Participants were blinded; personnel were not blinded (Ang 2015 [pers comm])
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcome measures	Low risk	There were no subjective outcome measures
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcome measures	Low risk	Quote: "Yes, the outcome assessors for Fugl‐Meyer were blinded to group allocation" (Ang 2015 [pers comm])
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Subjective outcome measures	Low risk	There were no subjective outcome measures
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Objective outcome measures	Low risk	All participants apparently completed the study. No treatment withdrawals, no losses to follow‐up, no trial group changes and no major adverse events were stated
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Not all of the secondary outcome measures listed in the published trial protocol have been reported, but will be presented in further publications (RMT of affected M1; grip strength; BBT; MRI parameters)