1. GRADE assessment for return to work.

Comparison	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Publication bias	Level of evidence
Cognitive rehabilitation vs no treatment	1 study, downgraded by 1 level	N/A	No	50 participants. CI overlapped with RR 0.75 and RR 1.25: downgraded by 2 levels	N/A	Very low quality
Cognitive rehabilitation vs conventional treatment 6 months' follow‐up	1 study, not downgraded	N/A	No	68 participants. CI overlapped with RR 1 and RR 1.25: downgraded 2 levels	N/A	Low quality
Hospital‐based cognitive rehabilitation vs home programme 24 months' follow‐up	1 study, not downgraded	N/A	No	120 participants, downgraded by 1 level	N/A	Moderate quality
Cognitive didactic therapy vs functional experiential 1 year' follow‐up	1 study, not downgraded	N/A	No	366 participants. CI overlapped with RR 1 and RR 1.25: downgraded by 1 level	N/A	Moderate quality

CI: confidence interval; N/A: not available; RR: risk ratio.