Wu 2007c.

Methods	Randomisation by random‐numbers table, other details were not provided Blinded outcome assessor No withdrawals Multicentre, inpatients/outpatients
Participants	Taiwan Recruited from the rehabilitation departments of 3 medical centres 26 participants: 13 intervention, 13 control Inclusion criteria: cerebrovascular accident between 0.5 and 31 months; Brunnstrom stage > 3 on arm section; non use of the more affected upper extremity (amount‐of‐use score < 2.5 on the MAL); no serious cognitive deficits Exclusion criteria: balance problems sufficient to compromise safety when wearing the study's constraint device Mean age (SD): intervention group: 71.44 (6.42) years, control group: 71.94 (16.79) years % women: intervention group 38%, control group: 46% Stroke details: ischaemic or haemorrhagic; 46% with right hemiparesis in treatment group, 54% with right hemiparesis in control group, all participants had right hand dominance Time since stroke, mean (SD): intervention group 6.70 (8.99) months, control group 8.32 (7.97) months
Interventions	mCIMT versus usual care mCIMT: functional tasks by shaping techniques with the affected arm, normalisation of muscle tone Amount of restraint: 6 hours per day Anatomical region restraint: hand Usual care: neurodevelopmental therapy emphasising functional task practice, stretching/weight‐bearing, fine‐motor dexterity training Session duration: 2 hours per day, 5 days per week, 3 weeks for each group
Outcomes	Measures pre/post treatment Perceived arm motor function: MAL Arm motor impairment: FMA ADL measure: FIM Quality of life: SIS
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Subjects were individually randomized into the mCIMT or the traditional rehabilitation group by using a table of random numbers"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Before and after the 3‐week intervention period, the tests were administered in random order by a blinded rater"
Incomplete outcome data addressed? (Post‐treatment)	Low risk	No missing data