Myint 2008.

Methods	Randomisation by drawing sealed envelopes, other details were not provided Blinded of outcome assessor Post‐treatment withdrawals: 10%; follow‐up withdrawals: 7.5% Single centre, outpatients
Participants	China Recruited from 3 hospitals with rehabilitation facilities 43 participants: 23 intervention, 20 control Inclusion criteria: cerebrovascular accident between 2 to 16 weeks; 10° of active extension to the metacarpophalangeal and interphalangeal joints 20° at wrist Exclusion criteria: severe aphasia, high risk of fall, cerebellar stroke and severe shoulder pain affecting therapy Mean age (SD): intervention group: 63.4 (13.6) years, control group: 63.9 (12.2) years % women: intervention group 56%, control group: 60% Stroke details: ischaemic or haemorrhagic; 48% with right hemiparesis in treatment group, 70% with right hemiparesis in control group Time since stroke, mean (SD): intervention group 1.27 (0.7) months, control group 1.5 (0.95) months
Interventions	CIMT versus control CIMT: adaptive task practice (shaping) Amount of restraint: 90% of waking hours Anatomical region restraint: arm and hand Control: bimanual task, compensatory techniques for ADL strength, range of motion, positioning and mobility training Session duration: 4 hours per day, 5 days per week, 2 weeks for each group
Outcomes	Measures pre/post treatment and follow‐up at 12 months Motor function: functional test for hemiparetic upper extremity, ARAT Perceived arm motor function: MAL Dexterity: 9HPT ADL measure: modified BI
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "subjects were randomized by drawing sealed envelopes which were filled at random with indication of which intervention group the patient was allocated to"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgment
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "The observer was blinded"
Incomplete outcome data addressed? (Post‐treatment)	High risk	5/28 missing from intervention group (due to transport problem, inadequate home support; others changed their mind about trial participation); 0/20 missing participants in the control group. Reasons for missing data outcomes possibly related to the true effect, with imbalance across intervention and control groups