2. Oculomotor rehabilitation versus sham training.

Study ID	Total participants	Primary: improved ocular motility	Secondary: improved functional vision	Secondary: improved symptoms	Secondary: adverse events
Thiagarajan 2014	12, cross‐over RCT 13‐week follow‐up	Baseline 2.1 saccadic ratio reducing to 1.7, P < 0.05 — OM rehabilitation Control group change not reported	Reading rate: Baseline 142 (10) wpm improving to 177 (14). Reading level: Baseline 4.1 (0.7) grade level improving to 6.3 (1.2), P < 0.01 Fixations per 100 words: Baseline 164 (10) improving to 135 (11), P = 0.02 Regressions per 100 words: Baseline 30 (3) improving to 23 (4) Control group changes not reported [means (SEM)]	Improved for OM rehabilitation. Control group changes not reported	Nil reported

SEM: standard error mean
 OM: oculo motor
 RCT: randomised controlled trial
 WPM: words per minute