Wichowicz 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: parallel design Number of arms: 2 Experimental arm: solution focused brief therapy Control arm: no psychotherapeutic interventions
Participants	Geographical location: Poland Setting: inpatient Stroke criteria: first ischaemic stroke Method of stroke diagnosis: confirmed by imaging Time since stroke: 30 days Inclusion criteria: 1) first ischaemic stroke Exclusion criteria: 1) extensive intellectual defects precluding verbal contact, dementia (MMSE < 23 points); 2) aphasia; 3) severe dysarthria; 4) severe paresis; 5) NIHSS scale > 21; (6) aged > 65 years Depression criteria: depression score not an entry criteria Total number randomised in this trial: 100 Number randomised to treatment group: 51 (% men not reported, mean age 53.3, SD 9.9) Number randomised to control group: 49 (% men not reported, mean age 54.2, SD 9.4) Total number included in final analysis: 62 Number included in treatment group for final analysis: 30 Number included in control group for final analysis: 32
Interventions	Treatment: solution focused brief therapy Treatment duration: 84 days Administered by: a therapist Supervision: not reported Intervention fidelity: 30/51 received allocated intervention, 21/51 did not receive allocated intervention. 32/49 received control intervention, 17/49 did not receive control allocation Control: no therapeutic interventions Follow‐up: not reported
Outcomes	Primary outcomes Depression measured using the HADS Anxiety measured using the HADS Secondary outcomes Disability measured using the RS Activities of daily living measured using the BI Impairment measured using the NIHSS
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "They were assigned by simple random allocation to one of two groups ..." pp. 1508 Comments: sequence generation was done through random number tables (according to the study author)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Allocation sequence was concealed until participation was proposed." pp. 1508 Comments: method of allocation concealment not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comments: participants were not blinded according to the author. Personnel were not blinded according to the author
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "All assessments were conducted and interpreted by one researcher who was blinded to the group and identity of subjects." pp. 1509
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comments: ITT analysis reported. All participants allocated to the intervention were included in the analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comments: no trial protocol available to compare with the publication
Other bias	Low risk	Quote: "There were no significant differences in the age, education and the physical function between the groups as shown in Table 1." pp. 1509 Comments: no other bias detected