Conroy 2011

Methods	Prospective, single‐blinded RCT Method of randomisation: choosing a sealed envelope
Participants	Country: USA Sample size: 62 participants (41 in the treatment group and 21 in the control group) Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of clinically defined, unilateral hemiparetic stroke with radiologic exclusion of other possible diagnoses; onset of stroke 6 months before randomisation for ischaemic stroke, 12 months for haemorrhagic stroke; manual muscle testing of grade 3 or lower for at least 1 muscle of the affected arm; > 18 years of age Exclusion criteria: serious complicating medical illness or stroke occurring within the previous 6 months (or both); contractures or orthopaedic problems limiting the range of joint movement in the potential study arm; visual loss limiting the ability to see the test patterns on the robot monitor; Botox injection of the affected arm 3 months before study onset or during the study
Interventions	3 groups: group A: received robot‐assisted planar reaching tasks with the InMotion 2.0 shoulder/arm over 6 weeks, 3 sessions per week for 1 hour group B: received robot‐assisted planar and vertical reaching tasks with the InMotion Linear Robot over the same time and frequency group C: participants received intensive conventional arm exercise, which includes, for example, 40 minutes of repetitive arm motion using an arm ergometer, or task specific and functional reaching tasks (cones), in addition to 10 minutes of passive and guided stretching and 10 minutes of repositioning and rest between activities
Outcomes	Outcomes were recorded 3 times at baseline and after 6 weeks and 3 months later (follow‐up) FMA WMFT SIS
Notes	We combined the results of both the planar group and the planar and vertical group in 1 (collapsed) group and compared this collapsed group with the results of the control group
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Stratified randomisation by a computer scheme
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information about the sequence generation process
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Assessment was performed by a single experienced evaluator blinded to group assignment
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement