Park 2016a (i).

Methods	Randomisation unclear Outcome assessor blinded (unilateral stimulation vs sham data set)
Participants	1 centre in Korea 35 participants with subacute stroke defined as onset < 3 months Swallowing dysfunction confirmed by videofluoroscopy Baseline characteristics similar 2 participants lost to follow‐up
Interventions	Rx 1: unilateral stimulation group with (10 Hz) rTMS on ipsilesional cortex and sham on contralesional cortex (n = 11) Rx 2: bilateral stimulation group with (10 Hz) rTMS on ipsilesional and contralesional cortex (n = 11) C: sham rTMS over bilateral hemispheres (n = 11) Control group split into n = 5 for data set 1 and n = 6 for data set 2 Therefore for this data set, unilateral stimulation (n = 11) vs sham stimulation (n = 5)
Outcomes	Clinical Dysphagia Scale, Dysphagia Outcome and Severity Scale, PAS, VDS
Notes	Exclusion: history of swallowing problems caused by other underlying neurological diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease, dementia, or motor neuron disease; history of intractable seizure; metallic implants in the brain
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Blinding unclear
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Single‐blinded (assessors only)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Reported only as single‐blinded (assessors only)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Outcome assessors blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	2 lost to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes reported
Other bias	Low risk	None identified