Ito 2007.

Methods	RCT.
Participants	60 participants with clinical diagnosis of VD recruited from 2 nursing homes and 1 hospital in Japan. 40 were in groups that were included in the current review. Mean age: 82 years.
Interventions	Intervention 1: group RT. Control: supportive care. Intervention 2: social contact (not included in this review).
Outcomes	Cognitive: MMSE (Japanese Version), CASI. Mood‐related outcomes: MOSES.*
Length and frequency of intervention	1 hour per week for 12 weeks.
Time points measured	Paper stated, "before and after the interventions."
Number of participants who did not complete study	6/40 (15%) (from groups relevant to the current review).
Notes	*MOSES data not included as no subscale data available, only the overall score. Contacted author by email requesting further information but we have not received a response.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	2‐step randomised allocation of participants stratified by age and education conducted by blinded researchers. Groups of 12 participants randomly divided into 3 subgroups by a computer, based on education and age. Subgroups were then randomly allocated to 3 arms by blinded researchers.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Group allocation. Paper reported allocators were blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Assessments were carried out by neuropsychologists blinded to group allocation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	3 participants dropped out of both the control and reminiscence groups. Attrition due to ill health or transfer out of the care home. 1 participant withdrew consent. Data from the ITT analysis was not extractable. Instead, authors extracted data from the per protocol analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes listed in the methods section were reported and there was no evidence of selective outcome reporting.
Other bias	Low risk	n/a.
Availability of training and supervision Objective outcome measures	Unclear risk	Not specified though paper reports each group included a care provider and 3 specialists, who were chosen among a psychologist, 2 speech therapists, 3 occupational therapists, 3 medical social workers and a nurse.
Availability of manual or protocol for intervention All outcomes	Low risk	Paper provided detailed schedule for each session and was based on that proposed by Akanuma and colleagues (Akanuma 2006).