Tyson 2015.

Methods	RCT
Participants	Country: UK Setting: 12 inpatient stroke services Age: adults (mean age: 64 years) Sample size: 94 participants from 12 sites: 63 in experimental group (6 dropped out), 31 in control group (3 dropped out) Sex: 34 women, 60 men Inclusion criteria: stroke at least 1 week previously and inpatient in a stroke rehabilitation unit, no premorbid conditions limiting upper or lower limb function, sufficient cognitive and communication to give consent, medically stable and able to participate in rehabilitation, upper or lower limb weakness which limits activity Exclusion criteria: not stated
Interventions	2 arms 1 and 2: conventional rehabilitation programme Participant–led MT: participants were taught how to do the mirror therapy and given an (aphasia‐friendly) instruction booklet to show them how to position the mirror themselves and also the exercises to do. An allocated member of staff checked on them daily to remind them to do the therapy and complete their diary sheets, help them get set up (if necessary), deal with any problems and progress the exercises Attentional control: lower limb exercises (without a mirror) 1 and 2: 4 weeks, 7 days a week, 30 minutes a day MT or lower‐limb exercises Date of intervention: not stated
Outcomes	Outcomes were recorded at baseline, after 4 weeks of therapy, and 8 weeks after baseline Feasibility and acceptability of patient‐led mirror therapy from a patient and staff perspective (assessed by questionnaire and interviews/ focus groups) Recruitment and retention rate Adherence to the therapy Adverse events SCT MI‐UL BBT ARAT RASP MAS elbow Adverse events ‐ participant self‐report Adherence – practice log sheets completed by the participant and treating clinician
Notes	Published and unpublished data, full‐text publication received in 2016 Funding source: National Institute for Health Research under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme Declarations of trialists’ interests: there are no conflicts of interest
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Participants were randomly assigned by computer‐generated random‐number sequence
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocation by an independent web‐based randomisation service
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	No ITT analysis
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) primary outcome	Low risk	Assessor was blinded to group allocation