Kim 2009.

Methods	Study design: single‐blinded, sham‐controlled, randomised cross‐over study Dropouts: none Adverse effects: none Deaths: none ITT: yes
Participants	Country: Republic of Korea Number of participants: 10 subacute participants Age: (mean) 62.8 years Gender: seven female (70%) Type of stroke: first‐ever stroke, as confirmed by MRI; 2 had haemorrhagic stroke (20%) Time poststroke: (mean) 6.4 weeks, range 3 to 12 weeks Severity: participants could grasp and release independently; degree of strength according to MRC was ≥ 3 but < 5 for all paretic finger flexors and extensors. Participants did not have a family history of seizure, could understand the purpose of the study and did not have any deformities or contractures of the fingers, hands, elbows and shoulders Inclusion criteria: not explicitly stated Exclusion criteria: not explicitly stated
Interventions	Each participant underwent 2 different stimulation conditions, each for 20 minutes, separated by at least 24 hours of rest A‐tDCS (1 mA) over the primary motor cortex of the first dorsal interossei muscle of the lesioned hemisphere Sham tDCS over the primary motor cortex of the first dorsal interossei muscle of the lesioned hemisphere
Outcomes	Box and Block test (the transfer of as many wooden blocks as possible with the lesioned hand from 1 compartment to the other within 1 minute, with a high value indicating good function) and finger acceleration measurement (in g, with a higher value indicating higher acceleration) at baseline, at 5 minutes of stimulation, immediately and at 30 and 60 minutes after stimulation Visual analogue scales to assess attention and fatigue (score 1 to 7; 1 = no attention/fatigue; 7 = highest level of attention/fatigue) at baseline, immediately and at 30 and 60 minutes after stimulation
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "A doctor who works in tDCS's room, he randomised patients on his own sequence" (Kim 2013 [pers comm])
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "A doctor who works in tDCS's room, he randomised patients on his own sequence" (Kim 2013 [pers comm])
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Subjective outcome measures	Low risk	Both participants and personnel were blinded (Kim 2013 [pers comm])
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Objective outcome measures	Low risk	Both participants and personnel were blinded (Kim 2013 [pers comm])
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcome measures	High risk	No blinding of outcome assessors. Quote: "An examiner who was aware of the stimulation method used was instructed not to communicate with patients during the task and evaluated patients’ performances"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcome measures	Low risk	No blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding. Quote . Quote: "An examiner who was aware of the stimulation method used was instructed not to communicate with patients during the task and evaluated patients’ performances"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Subjective outcome measures	Low risk	All randomised participants apparently completed the study. No treatment withdrawals, no losses to follow‐up, no trial group changes and no major adverse events were stated
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Objective outcome measures	Low risk	All randomised 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	All outcomes reported in the methods section reported