Appendix Table 2.

Adapted NOS for analysis of case-control studies on M/EEG or ECOG and CR Rating system based on McPheeters and colleagues (2012).

Adapted NOS for analysis of case–control studies on M/EEG or ECOG and CR
	Item	Response options: score	Operational definitions
	(1) Is the case definition adequate?	(a) Yes, with independent validation: 1 (b) Yes, for example, record linkage or based on self-reports: 0 (c) No description: 0	• (a) Independent validation: case/control classification can be independently verified (i.e., test, independent clinician diagnosis). • (b) Case/control classification is based on self-report from the participant. • (c) No description
	(2) Representativeness of the cases	(a) Consecutive or obviously representative series of cases: 1 (b) Potential for selection biases or not stated: 0	• (a) Cases and controls were included in consecutive order or (b) is there a possible (undesirable) interference in the inclusion of participants?
	(3) Selection of controls	(a) Community controls: 1 (b) Hospital controls: 0 (c) No description: 0	• Were the controls recruited (a) from the whole community (e.g., with public advertisements) or (b) inside the hospital/no description?
Selection	(4) Definition of controls	(a) No history of disease (endpoint): 1 (b) No description of source: 0	• The controls would be considered as the natural trajectory of the subjects in comparisons without CR.
Comparability	(5) Comparability of cases and controls on the basis of the design or analysis	(a) Study controls for age: 1 (b) Study controls for gender and/or education level: 1	• Controlling for subject characteristic covariates (e.g., including age, gender, and/or educational levels)
	(6) Ascertainment of outcome	(a) Secure record (e.g., measured M/EEG or ECOG, CR questionnaire): 1 (b) Structured interview, blind to case/control status: 1 (c) Interview not blinded to case/control status: 0 (d) Written self-report or medical record only: 0 (e) No description: 0	• Described tool for CR and M/EEG or ECOG • The assessment must report the demographic measures providing the data (e.g., years of education, composite score). • Controlling for signal-to-noise ratio of M/EEG or ECOG measures
	(7) Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls	(a) Yes: 1 (b) No: 0	• The method applied to cases and controls is explicitly detailed as being the same.
Outcome	(8) Non-response rate	(a) Same rate for both groups: 1 (b) Non-respondents described: 0 (c) Rate different and no designation: 0	• Non-responders can also be considered when they are excluded due to low-performance on task or noise records on M/EEG or ECOG.