Lin 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: RCT Duration of trial: 15/16 months (July 2011 to November 2012) Unit of randomisation: people with stroke of 6–10 months' duration with executive function and memory deficits; aged 45–70 years Recruitment and allocation: patients attending a rehabilitation hospital were recruited and randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups: IG (n = 16) and CG (n = 18)
Participants	Setting: rehabilitation department of 1 rehabilitation hospital Country: China Sample size: 34 adults, 59% men; IG: 16; CG: 18 Inclusion criteria: confirmed diagnosis of first stroke; deficits in both executive function and memory (z‐scores < 1.5 in the Wechsler Memory Scale memory quotient and TMT); right handed; education ≥ 8 years; time since stroke 6–10 months (180–300 days); aged 45–70 years; normal hearing and vision Exclusion criteria: mental retardation; history of Alzheimer's disease or mental illness such as schizophrenia before stroke; vital organ failure; concomitant antidepressant, psychoactive drug, or steroid therapy Age: mean: IG: 62.4 (SD 6.0) years; CG: 63.2 (SD 5.7) years Time since onset of stroke: mean: IG: 227.5 (SD 24.0) days; CG: 228.1 (SD 18.4) days Types of stroke: not reported Site of lesion: n (left/right hemisphere): IG: 6/10; CG: 9/9
Interventions	Intervention group Brief name: RehaCom Recipients: adults in rehabilitation 6–10 months since stroke with executive function and memory deficits. Why: to improve executive function and memory. What (materials): RehaCom software; see hasomed.de/en/products/rehacom/; the software is available in 27 languages at no extra cost; computer. What (procedures): CT; no further description of procedures provided. Who provided: 2 trained psychologists; the RehaCom website states that the software is used "extensively by … occupational therapists" and other clinicians in rehabilitation centres, hospitals, and clinics. How: not described but presumably face‐to‐face Where: not described but presumably in the rehabilitation department When and how much: 1 hour per session, 6 sessions per week for 10 weeks (60 hours in total) Tailoring: none reported Modifications: none reported How well (planned): none reported How well (actual): none reported Comparator group Brief name: CG Recipients: adults in rehabilitation 6–10 months since stroke with executive function and memory deficits Why: to provide rehabilitation. What: not described except that no CT was provided. Who provided: not reported How: not reported Where: not reported, presumably within the rehabilitation department When and how much: not reported Tailoring: none reported Modifications: none reported How well (planned): not reported How well (actual): not reported
Outcomes	Primary: none Secondary Wechsler Memory Scale Orientation Mental control Logical memory Digits forward and backward Memory Quotient TMT‐A TMT‐B Other Wechsler Memory Scale Information Visual reproduction Associated learning Resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging Methods of data collection: neuropsychological assessments performed by 2 trained psychologists who were blinded to group assignment. Data collection time points: baseline and after intervention (10 weeks)
Notes	Funding: yes 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)	Low risk	Used random number table.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of allocation not reported.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding or not was not reported but it was apparent that participants could have known which group they were allocated to.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Neuropsychological assessments were performed by 2 trained psychologists who were blinded to group assignment.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Number randomised was unclear, just the number who completed the study was reported.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	It appears that all planned outcomes were reported.
Other bias	Low risk	No other identifiable bias.