Hasanzadeh Pashang 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: RCT Duration of trial: not reported Unit of randomisation: people with right cerebral cortical ischaemic stroke with attention impairments 6 months to 3 years poststroke Recruitment and allocation: using purposive sampling of participants with attention impairment, 20 participants randomised to IG (n = 10) or CG (n = 10).
Participants	Setting: stroke rehabilitation clinic Country: Iran Sample size: 20 adults, 75% men; IG: 10; CG: 10 Inclusion criteria: first‐time ischaemic stroke, thrombotic ischaemia in right cerebral cortical region, confirmed attention impairment, 13–15 consciousness on Glasgow Coma tables, no previous treatment for attention deficits, able to read and write, 6 months to 3 years after stroke Exclusion criteria: white matter lesion of brain, and cerebral atrophy (with no previous symptoms); alcohol and drug addiction; hearing loss; complete memory recovery before the end of intervention; impaired consciousness or brain "re‐attack"; no speech power; the lack of co‐operation of patients' families Age: mean: IG: 53.90 (SD 9.73) years; CG: 57.70 (SD 12.16) years Time since onset of stroke: mean: IG: 11.90 months; CG: 20.3 months Types of stroke: thrombotic ischaemia Site of lesion: right cerebral cortical region
Interventions	Intervention group Brief name: cognitive rehabilitation Recipients: adults 6 months to 3 years poststroke with attention impairment Why: to improve visual and auditory attention performance through group work including focused stimulation, learning compensatory coping strategies, acquiring insight and awareness, emotional adjustment, and improved self‐efficacy of feeling more 'in control' (Powell 2017). What (materials): the Brain Injury Workbook. Exercises for Cognitive Rehabilitation (Powell 2017). www.routledge.com/The-Brain-Injury-Workbook-Exercises-for-Cognitive-Rehabilitation-2nd/Powell/p/book/9781315172897 What (procedures): routine rehabilitation plus cognitive rehabilitation delivered according to the Brain Injury Workbook (Powell 2017) Table 1 of paper outlines content of 8 sessions: determining the purpose and familiarity with stroke and its effects on attention, memory, and daily life; defining attention and its types. Attention persistence training. Training (backward training); memorising pictures, names, and face, and practicing word listing; meaning evocation training, and completing words; family name training, and word finding training to promote the divided attention; different‐options training, and using memory auxiliaries; training how to remember arrangements and gathering training; training how to remember numbers and review of some training, solving problems and responding to patient questions. Who provided: not reported; Powell 2017 stated that the workbook can be used by therapists working with brain‐injured people in groups and can be used by people with brain injuries themselves and their carers. How: face‐to‐face in groups of 2–10 people, as per workbook Where: stroke rehabilitation clinic with no further description When and how much: 8 sessions, 1 hour per week (total of 8 hours) Tailoring: none reported, although content appears amenable to individual tailoring, e.g. family name training Modifications: none reported How well (planned): none reported How well (actual): none Comparator group Brief name: routine rehabilitation Recipients: adults 6 months to 3 years poststroke with attention impairment Why: to provide routine rehabilitation. What: drug therapy combined with physiotherapy Who provided: not reported, presumably relevant rehabilitation clinic staff How: individual and face‐to‐face Where: stroke rehabilitation clinic When and how much: not reported Tailoring: none reported Modifications: not reported How well (planned): not reported How well (actual): not reported
Outcomes	Primary: none Secondary IVA‐CPT Methods of data collection: not reported Data collection time points: before and after the intervention (8 weeks) and 6 weeks after completion of intervention
Notes	Funding: none Conflict of interest: none Published trial protocol: none located Trial registration: none reported Ethics approval: yes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method for randomisation not reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of allocation not reported.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not reported but it is apparent that participants could have known which group they were allocated to.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not clearly reported.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	It appears that all planned outcomes were reported.
Other bias	Low risk	No other identifiable bias.