Sohn 2013.

Methods	Study design: randomised sham‐controlled cross‐over trial Number of dropouts: not stated Number of adverse effects: not stated Deaths: not stated ITT: unclear
Participants	Country: Republic of Korea Sample size: 11 (age in years (mean (SD)): 58 (15); time since stroke in days (mean (SD)): 63 (17)) Inclusion criteria: not explicitly stated, undergoing rehabilitation following acute treatment Exclusion criteria: history of previous stroke; history of previous epilepsy/seizure; family history of epilepsy/seizure; metal in the cranial cavity; permanent pacemaker; previous or persistent other neurological disorders; stroke lesion in the cerebellum; contracture of the lower limb on the affected side
Interventions	Each participant underwent one of the following two conditions A‐tDCS over M1 of the affected hemisphere (2 mA for 10 minutes) followed by 48 hours of resting period followed by sham tDCS over M1 of the affected hemisphere (2 mA for 20 seconds) Sham tDCS over M1 of the affected hemisphere (2 mA for 20 seconds) followed by 48 hours of resting period followed by A‐tDCS over M1 of the affected hemisphere (2 mA for 10 minutes)
Outcomes	Outcomes were measured at baseline and at study end Balance performance (Balance System SD) Isometric strength of knee extensor muscles (Biodex System 4 Pro)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "The two stimulation experiments were performed in random order for each patient"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described by the authors
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	Unclear risk	Participants were blinded, quote: "Patients were unlikely to be aware of any difference between real and sham stimulation", whereas personnel were probably not; quote: "Second, a double‐blind design was not used for experiments"
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	Outcome assessor probably was not blinded, however the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding; quote: "Second, a double‐blind design was not used for experiments"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Subjective outcome measures	Unclear 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
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Objective outcome measures	Unclear 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	All outcomes listed in the methods section reported