Kim 2012i.

Methods	Method of randomisation unclear Blinding unclear (High frequency data set vs control)
Participants	1 centre in Korea 30 participants with acute brain injury; baseline characteristics similar Clinical and videofluoroscopic evidence of dysphagia
Interventions	Rx 1: high‐frequency (5 Hz) rTMS (n = 10) Rx 2: low‐frequency (1 Hz) rTMS (n = 10) (Using high frequency data set) C: sham stimulation. (n = 10); control = 5 Treatment for 2 weeks
Outcomes	Functional Dysphagia Scale and Penetration Aspiration Scale
Notes	Exclusions: prior diagnosis of another neurological disease, unstable medical condition, severe cognitive impairment, severe aphasia, history of seizure
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of randomisation unclear
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unclear
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unclear
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unclear
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	None lost to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes reported
Other bias	Low risk	None identified