Saposnik 2016.

Methods	RCT
Participants	Recruited from rehabilitation units in 4 countries: Canada, Argentina, Peru, Thailand 141 participants: 71 intervention group, 70 control group Inclusion criteria: 18‐85 years with first time ischaemic stroke within 3 months of enrolment and with mild to moderate motor disability (Chedoke McMaster Stroke Assessment stage > 3) Exclusion criteria: no disability in the UE (arm components of the Chedoke McMaster scale = 7), were unable to follow instructions, pre‐stroke Modified Rankin score of ≥ 2, medically unstable or uncontrolled hypertension; severe illness with a life expectancy of < 3 months, unstable angina or MI within 3 months, history of seizures or epilepsy (except for febrile seizures of childhood); participating in another clinical trial involving an investigational drug or physical therapy or had any condition that might put the patient at risk (e.g. known shoulder subluxation) Mean (SD) age: intervention group 62 (13) years, control group 62 (12) years Stroke details: 100% ischaemic; right hemiparesis 47% Timing post stroke: intervention group mean 27 d, control group mean 24.5 d
Interventions	VR intervention: Nintendo Wii Sports and Game Party 3. Progression through the intervention allowed participants to choose some specific activities within those games (last 3 min of the intervention) based on their capabilities and interest with the goals of enhancing flexibility, ROM, strength and co‐ordination of the affected arm Control intervention: recreational therapy with progression through activities such as cards, bingo, Jenga or a ball game Administered 1:1 by a rehabilitation therapist Sessions were 60 min, 5 times/week for 2 weeks
Outcomes	Outcomes were recorded at 2 weeks (post intervention) and 4 weeks Abbreviated Wolf Motor Function Test Box and Block Test Quality of life after stroke ‐ Stroke Impact Scale Functional Independence Measure, Barthel Index, Modified Rankin Scale Grip strength (dynamometer) Hand function ‐ Stroke Impact Scale Adverse events reported
Notes	NCT01406912
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated assignment
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Assignment at the point enrolment
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Blinded assessor
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	ITT analysis conducted. Details of withdrawals reported transparently
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes reported