Welfringer 2011.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT, designed as a feasibility study Setting: Germany
Participants	30 participants with right hemisphere stroke, less than 6 months previously Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of right hemispheric stroke dated less than 6 months earlier; no history of major psychiatric problems and no other coexisting disease/disability; showed unilateral left visuospatial neglect symptoms as defined by a score ≤ 54 on the Letter Cancellation Test; no diagnosis of hemianopia; sufficient sensory, physical, and cognitive capacities to follow instructions for more than 30 minutes and no additional verbal‐memory deficits as defined by a percentage rank > 16 in the story recall subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scale‐Revised (WMS‐R); aged between 20 and 75 years; right‐handed; provided informed consent Experimental: n = 15; mean age = 56.3 years (SD 11.2); mean time since stroke = 3.2 months (SD 1.5) Control: n = 15; mean age = 57.3 years (SD 11.3); mean time since stroke = 3.4 months (SD 2.8)
Interventions	Visuomotor‐imagery therapy (2 daily half‐hour sessions of visuomotor‐imagery therapy as add‐on treatment over a period of 3 weeks; participants mentally practised positions and movements of the contralesional upper limb in a repetitive fashion and as vividly and intensively as possible; over the course of the 3‐week intervention period, they participated in 28 to 30 training sessions; a total of 4 positions and 6 sequences (simple and complex movements) were imagined, with 1 exercise repeated up to 10 times per session) vs no supplementary intervention All participants received standardised rehabilitation therapies including 45 minutes of exploration training 4 times per week
Outcomes	Neglect tests: Bells Cancellation test; drawing tasks; text‐reading task Representation tests: test of mental representation of left side of body Arm function texts: sensation of left arm; Action Research Arm Test Measured immediately post treatment For analyses within this review, we used neglect ‐ Bells Cancellation test
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocation sequences have been generated by study personnel prior to beginning the trial using a web‐based randomisation generator (http://www.randomization.com)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Blocked randomisation, in blocks of 10; computer‐generated sequence, delivered by person independent of intervention
Blinding of participants	High risk	Impossible to blind
Blinding of personnel	High risk	Impossible to blind
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	States: "outcome measures were assessed by a blinded tester." although no detail given
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No loss to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All reported with equal detail
Other bias	Low risk	Nothing obvious