Liu 2009.

Study characteristics
Methods	Single‐blind, RCT
Participants	Participants recruitment methods were not recorded by the study authors Sample size: 34 Inclusion criteria: patients were included if they had experienced a first acute stroke; sustained unilateral cerebral infarction within the middle carotid artery system; aged over 60 years; independent in their daily activities before the stroke; able to communicate effectively and were cognitively intact when assessed using a validated neurocognitive functioning test (Cognistat, Northern California Neurobehavioral Group, CA, USA) Exclusion criteria: not reported by study authors Mean (SD) age: conventional occupational therapy group: 68.1 (SD 10.5) years; MI group: 70.4 (SD 9.8) years Stroke details: all cases are ischemic Stroke phase: unspecified
Interventions	Experimental group: participants in the MI group received 1 hour of MI per treatment. The MI intervention involved the patients’ self‐reflection on their abilities and deficits: mentally imagining, then actually performing, the task. Average time spent on MI and in actual practice was 30 minutes each Control group: conventional occupational therapy: participants were given conventional occupational therapy using demonstration‐and‐practice methods to train them to perform the same 15 daily tasks All participants had 1 hour of physical therapy daily that involved mobilization, strengthening, and walking exercises. All treatment protocols were administered 5 times a week for 3 weeks (a total of 15 treatments). All patients were trained to relearn 15 daily tasks. Five tasks with a similar level of difficulty were covered each week, progressing from the easiest to the most difficult
Outcomes	Outcomes recorded before and after intervention Dependence on personal assistance: Barthel Index Motor function: Fugl‐Meyer Assessment Scale
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: “Patients were randomized by drawing lots for either the MI or FR programs”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Allocation concealment was not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding of participants and personnel was not reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: “the assessors were blinded to the nature of the intervention”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Reasons for the lack of data not related to the result
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Study authors presented what they proposed in the methodology
Other bias	Low risk	None detected