Lum 2006

Methods	RCT Method of randomisation: list of random numbers
Participants	Country: USA Sample size: 30 participants (9 in the robot‐unilateral group, 10 in the robot‐bilateral group, 5 in the robot‐combined group, and 6 in the control group) Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of stroke, 1 to 5 months poststroke Exclusion criteria: any upper‐limb joint pain or range‐of‐motion limitations that would affect their ability to complete the protocols; any unstable cardiovascular, orthopaedic, or neurological conditions; cognitive impairments (scored < 21 of the Folstein Mini‐Mental State Examination)
Interventions	4 groups: robot‐unilateral group performed exercises with the MIME device that progressed from the easiest exercise modes (passive) to the most challenging (active‐constrained); no bilateral exercise was performed robot‐bilateral group practised the same 12 reaching movements as in group 1, but only in bilateral mode with the MIME device robot‐combined group spent approximately half the treatment time in the unilateral mode (as in group 1) and the other half in the bilateral mode with the MIME device control group received an equivalent intensity and duration of conventional therapy targeting proximal upper‐limb function based on neurodevelopmental treatment Groups 1 to 3 were collapsed to 1 robot treatment group (pooled as 1 group) in our analysis
Outcomes	Outcomes were recorded immediately before treatment started, immediately post‐treatment, and 6 months after treatment ended FMA Motor Status Score FIM Motor Power examination to assess arm strength MAS
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information about the sequence generation process
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information about the concealment of allocation
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	An occupational therapist blinded to group assignment tested all participants with a battery of clinical evaluations
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement