Cho 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: parallel RCT Duration of trial: 6 weeks (dates not specified) Unit of randomisation: people with hemiparetic stroke onset within 3 months to 1 year Recruitment and allocation: eligible people from among 48 stroke inpatients who were undergoing physical and occupational therapy were randomised to 1 of 3 groups, NFB (not included in this review), CACR (n = 14), and CG (n = 16).
Participants	Setting: 1 general hospital Country: Republic of Korea Sample size: 30 adults, 53% men; CARR: 14 (64% men); CG: 16 (48% men) Inclusion criteria: hemiparetic stroke of onset within 3 months to 1 year, able to follow verbal instructions and to communicate, experienced mild cognitive deficit (18–23 on the MMSE), able to perform all tests Exclusion criteria: if had never attended a school or had received CACR within the past year Age: mean: CARC: 63.0 (SD 5.4) years; CG: 64.0 (SD 8.8) years Time since onset of stroke: mean: CARC: 5.1 (SD 2.2) months; CG: 6.5 (SD 1.5) months Types of stroke: not described, except hemiplegic Site of lesion: not reported
Interventions	Intervention group Brief name: CARR using RehaCom software Recipients: adults with stroke within 3–12 months poststroke with cognitive dysfunction Why: to improve problem‐solving ability through use of games or other computer‐based programs in a manner that allowed different levels of task difficulty for the participant. What (materials): RehaCom software (Korean version): attention, concentration, and memory programs; see hasomed.de/en/products/rehacom/. The software is available in 27 languages at no extra cost; computer; monitor, keyboard. What (procedures): CACR in addition to occupational therapy and physical therapy. Who provided: 2 "expert therapists" provided the CACR and traditional rehabilitation therapy. The RehaCom website states that the software is used "extensively by … occupational therapists" and other clinicians in rehabilitation centres, hospitals, and clinics. How: face‐to‐face and individually (presumably) Where: not specified but within hospital When and how much: 30 minutes per day, 5 days per week, for 6 weeks (total of 15 hours) (in addition to usual occupational therapy and physical therapy) Tailoring: training at different levels of task difficulty according to the functional level of the participant Modifications: none reported How well (planned): not reported How well (actual): not reported Comparator group Brief name: traditional rehabilitation therapy Recipients: adults with stroke with cognitive dysfunction Why: to provide rehabilitation services to people poststroke. What: occupational therapy and physical therapy Who provided: occupational therapists and physiotherapists How: face‐to‐face Where: 1 general hospital When and how much: 30 minutes 5 times per week for 6 weeks (total of 15 hours) Tailoring: none reported Modifications: not reported How well (planned): not reported How well (actual): not reported
Outcomes	Primary FIM Methods of data collection: data collection not described except that FIM Motor and Cognitive subtotal and FIM Total scores were calculated. Data collection time points: baseline and 6 weeks (post‐treatment)
Notes	Funding: not reported Conflict of interest: not reported Published trial protocol: not reported Trial registration: not reported Ethics approval: yes "approved by the Institutional Review Board of Gachon University"
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants could discern which group they were in and therapist could also.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes in the methods were reported in the results; no protocol reported.
Other bias	Low risk	No other identifiable bias.