Dos Santos 2017.

Methods	Randomised controlled cross‐over trial
Participants	Country: Brazil 13 participants (7 men, 6 women); mean age (SD): 56 (18) years; time since stroke not described; educational level 11 out of 13 (85%) elementary school; mean naming accuracy at baseline not described Inclusion criteria: left hemispheric stroke at least 6 months prior and Broca or anomic aphasia Exclusion criteria: dysarthria, apraxia of speech, previous speech and language therapy, any clinically significant or unstable medical or psychiatric disorder, history of substance abuse, neuropsychiatric comorbidities
Interventions	Each participant underwent all of the following conditions before and after the Boston Naming Test with an intersession interval of unknown length between each condition: ‐ dual tDCS (A‐tDCS over Broca's area and concurrent C‐tDCS over homologous Broca's area) with 2 mA for 20 minutes ‐ TMS over homologous Broca's area with 1 Hz for 20 minutes, using 90% of the motor threshold ‐ sham tDCS with 2 mA for 20 seconds ‐ sham TMS with 1 Hz for 20 seconds
Outcomes	Outcomes were recorded at baseline, and at the end of intervention phase: ‐ performance in picture naming ‐ response time ‐ picture‐naming strategy ‐ response time strategy ‐ total response time
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Quote: "The randomization was made by statistic orientation in three weeks ..."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described by the study authors
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Objective outcomes	Unclear risk	Objective outcome measures: participants apparently were blinded, blinding of personnel not described by the study authors
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes	Unclear risk	Not described by the study authors
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Objective outcomes	Unclear risk	Objective outcomes: all participants completed the study. No treatment withdrawals, no trial group changes and no major adverse events stated
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	All outcomes listed in the 'Methods' section reported, no published protocol could be identified
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias identified