Barker‐Collo 2009

Methods	RCT, parallel group design Concealed online Internet randomisation service with stratified minimisation Implementation of randomisation sequence by the treating clinician who had no access to assessment data. Randomisation information was not accessible by any other study staff during the study Approach: restoration of attentional functions with the means of APT
Participants	New Zealand, recruited from 2 hospitals Total participant sample 78; 10 lost at 5 weeks, 12 were not assessed at 6 months Treatment group: n = 38; mean age 70.2 ± 15.6 years; 60.5% males; 18.5 ± 12.0 days since onset; hemisphere of lesion: 14 left (44%), 15 right (47%), 3 bilateral or unclear (9%) Control group: n = 40; mean age 67.7 ± 15.6 years; 60.0% males; 18.6 ± 7.6 days since onset; hemisphere of lesion: 25 left (58%), 17 right (40%), 1 bilateral or unclear (2%) Inclusion criteria: attention deficit defined as performance > 1 SD below norm on any attentional tests; stroke using WHO criteria; admitted to 1 of 2 hospitals; within 2 weeks of stroke Exclusion criteria: unable to give consent; MMSE < 20; medically unstable; unable to speak English; other relevant conditions, such as dementia
Interventions	Treatment: up to 30 hours individual APT for 1 hour on weekdays for 4 weeks, mean 13.5 ± 9.4 hours Control: no treatment
Outcomes	Measured at post‐treatment (5 weeks) and follow‐up (6 months) Primary outcome: IVA‐CPT Full‐Scale Attention Quotient (z‐scores) Secondary outcomes: IVA‐CPT Auditory attention (z‐scores) IVA‐CPT Visual attention (z‐scores) Bells test (omissions of left, central, and right‐sided targets) Trail Making A & B (z‐scores) PASAT (z‐scores for 2 and 2.4 sec) SF‐36 (Mental Component Score and Physical Component Score) Modified Rankin (raw score)* Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (raw score)* GHQ‐28 (raw score)* * Only measured at 6 months' follow‐up
Notes	Provided numbers of side of hemisphere lesions do not add up to total participant sample. Additional data for analysis provided by authors
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Internet based and independent
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Concealed
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Participants and therapist not blinded as aware of intervention being given
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Trained assessor blind to randomisation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Intention‐to‐treat analysis Last observation carried forward
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No indication in article