Summary of findings 1. Summary of findings table ‐ More time compared to less time in rehabilitation (objective one – immediately after intervention).

More time compared to less time in rehabilitation (objective one – immediately after intervention)
Patient or population:rehabilitation vs less time spent Setting:any rehabilitation setting, including hospital, outpatients, and patient's home Intervention:more time Comparison:less time
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	№ of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with less time	Risk with more time
Activities of daily living (ADL) outcomes assessed with: studies measured ADL outcomes using different scales. Higher scores indicate greater independence	‐	SMD 0.13 SD higher (0.02 lower to 0.28 higher)	‐	864 (19 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b,c	Generally, an SMD of 0.2 is considered a small effect. Therefore, this finding suggests that the average difference in mean scores between more therapy groups and less therapy groups is small. As the CI for this outcome included 0, there may be no difference for ADL measures when more time is spent in rehabilitation.
Activity measures of the upper limb (upper limb activity) assessed with: studies measured upper limb activity using different scales. Higher scores indicate greater activity	‐	SMD 0.09 higher (0.11 lower to 0.29 higher)	‐	426 (18 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b,d	Generally, an SMD of 0.2 is considered a small effect. Therefore, this finding suggests that the average difference in mean scores between more therapy groups and less therapy groups is small. As the CI for this outcome crossed 0, there may be no difference for upper limb activity measures when more time is spent in rehabilitation.
Activity measures of the lower limb (lower limb activity) assessed with: studies measured lower limb activity using different scales. Higher scored indicate greater activity	‐	SMD 0.25 higher (0.03 lower to 0.53 higher)	‐	425 (5 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa,b	Generally, an SMD of 0.2 is considered a small effect. Therefore, this finding suggests that the average difference in mean scores between more therapy groups and less therapy groups is small. As the CI for this outcome crossed 0, there may be no difference for lower limb activity measures when more time is spent in rehabilitation.
Motor impairment measures of the upper limb (upper limb impairment) assessed with: studies measured upper limb impairment using different scales. Higher scores indicate less impairment	‐	SMD 0.32 higher (0.06 higher to 0.58 higher)	‐	287 (12 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa,e	Generally, an SMD of 0.2 is considered a small effect. Therefore, this finding suggests that the average difference in mean scores between more therapy groups and less therapy groups is small. As the CI for this outcome did not cross 0, there is a benefit for upper limb impairment measures when more time is spent in rehabilitation.
Motor impairment measures of the lower limb (lower limb impairment) assessed with: knee flexion peak torque	‐	SMD 0.71 SD higher (0.15 higher to 1.28 higher)	‐	51 (1 RCT)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowf,g	Generally, an SMD of 0.5 is considered a moderate effect. Therefore, this finding suggests that the average difference in mean scores between more therapy groups and less therapy groups is moderate. As the CI for this outcome did not cross 0, there is a benefit for lower limb impairment measures when more time is spent in rehabilitation.
Serious adverse events/death	48 per 1000	57 per 1000 (24 to 136)	RR 1.20 (0.51 to 2.85)	379 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa,b	There is no increased risk of serious adverse events or death when more time is spent in rehabilitation.
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; SMD: standardised mean difference
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
See interactive version of this table: https://gdt.gradepro.org/presentations/#/isof/isof_question_revman_web_417399834740907517.

^a Several studies classified as 'some concerns' or 'high' risk of bias (downgraded one level).
^b 95% CI contains an effect size of no difference.
^c Two studies may have measured this outcome but have not reported it. A funnel plot showed some asymmetry, which may be indicative of publication bias.
^d Five studies may have assessed this outcome but did not report findings. A forest plot showed asymmetry, suggestive of non‐reporting bias.
^e One study assessed this outcome but did not report findings and two further studies may have assessed this outcome but did not report findings.
^f Analysis only included one study, which at high risk of bias. Therefore, finding considered at very serious risk of bias (downgraded two levels).
^g Two studies may have assessed this outcome but did not report findings.