Cheng 2006.

Methods	Design: randomized, parallel‐group control (pretest‐post‐test control group design). Duration of study: September 2004 to March 2005.
Participants	Number randomized: 21. 11 allocated to intervention group, 10 to control group. Inclusion criteria: impaired self‐awareness; stable and alert mental state, with GCS 15/15; appropriate communication skill, normal range in language subset of Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Examination. Exclusion criteria: None reported.
Interventions	Intervention: Awareness Intervention Programme (AIP). Individual therapy. Content of AIP included: awareness of knowledge about deficits; application of knowledge on real world; practice of neuropsychological functions of self‐performance predictions and goal settings. Duration: 2 sessions per day, 5 days per week for 4 weeks Control: conventional rehabilitation programme. Group therapy. 2 or 3 sessions every day including physical, functional and cognitive aspects of occupational therapy, for 4 weeks.
Outcomes	FIM. Lawton IADL score. Self‐Awareness of Deficits Interview (SADI).
Notes	Setting: inpatients at MacLehose Medical Rehabilitation Center, Hong Kong. Country: China. Duration of follow‐up: none. Dropouts: none. Funding: none declared. Comment: return to work status and community integration not reported. Long‐term maintenance of treatment effects could not be studied as there was no follow‐up evaluation.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Ten of the participants were randomly assigned to a control group and 11 were allocated to the experimental group according to their admission sequence." Comment: in view of the potential non‐random component (admission sequence) in the sequence generation process, we judged this to be of unclear risk of bias.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Quote: "Allocation according to admission sequence." Comment: allocation by admission sequence is likely to have unblinded the allocation.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "limitation is that this was not a blinded study." Comment: self‐reported outcomes are likely to be influenced by the knowledge of allocation.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Scoring was primarily conducted by a therapist who was not involved in the programme implementation."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: no dropouts reported.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All 3 rating scales listed in methods were reported.
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: no other sources of bias detected.