Jetté 2013

Methods	Cross‐over RCT
Participants	Country of study: Canada Setting: outpatient rehabilitation centre Condition: post‐SCI neuropathic pain Prior management details: almost all participants in various medications n = 18 Age: range 31‐69 years, mean (SD) 50 (9) Duration of symptoms: not reported Gender distribution: 11 M, 5 F
Interventions	Stimulation type: rTMS Stimulation parameters: frequency 10 Hz; coil orientation 45º posterolateral, 90% RMT for hand, 110% RMTA for leg, number of trains 40; duration of trains 5 s; ITI 25 s; total number of pulses 2000 Stimulation location: M1 hand or leg area with neuronavigation Number of treatments: single session per condition, 1 session of sham Control type: sham coil ‐ same sound and appearance and sensation
Outcomes	Primary: pain NRS anchors 0 = no pain, 10 = worst possible pain When taken: immediately poststimulation, 20 min poststimulation Secondary: AEs ‐ though no formal assessment reported
Notes	Funding source: supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Grant Number MOP‐79370. C. Mercier was supported by salary awards from the CIHR and the Fonds de recherche du Québec, Santé (FRQS). F. Jetté was supported by a fellowship from Université Laval and H. B. Meziane by a fellowship from the Réseau Provincial de Recherche en Adaptation‐Réadaptation (REPAR‐FRQS). Support was provided by the Consortium d’Imagerie en Neuroscience et Santé Mentale de Québec (CINQ) for MRI acquisition COI: the study authors declared no potential COI
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote “2 active rTMS sessions (hand/leg M1 area) and 1 sham rTMS session in a randomized, counterbalanced order.” Comment: method of randomisation not described
Adequate blinding of participants?	Low risk	Quote “Sham rTMS, using a sham coil (mimicking the noise and scalp sensations), was applied over the hand area using the same parameters
Adequate blinding of assessors?	Low risk	Quote “The researcher running the pre‐post assessment (as well as data analysis) was blind relative to the applied rTMS protocol(as was the participant), with the rTMS application being performed by a different researcher
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: dropout levels low ‐ 2 in total
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: data provided upon author request
Free from carry‐over effects?	Unclear risk	Comment: 2‐week washout period observed but no analysis or data presented to confirm baseline comparability
Study Size	High risk	Comment: n = 16
Study duration	High risk	Comment: immediate poststimulation measurement only
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: no other bias detected