Prokopenko 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: parallel RCT (note: data only for 2 groups included in this review: IG and passive CG) Duration of trial: not reported Unit of randomisation: participants aged 40–67 years, with vascular cognitive impairments without dementia in early recovery periods of ischaemic hemispheric stroke (up to 6 months after stroke) Recruitment and allocation: not reported in detail; 25 participants receiving conventional treatment in the Neurorehabilitation Center were randomised into 3 groups: IG (n = 10), passive CG (n = 9), and active CG (n = 6); data only for the intervention and passive CG were used in this review.
Participants	Setting: neurorehabilitation centre Country: Russia Sample size: 19 adults, 72% men; IG: 10; passive CG: 9 Exclusion criteria: decompensation of somatic and neurological diseases; epilepsy; severe cognitive dysfunction; severe and moderate aphasia; and severe decrease of vision or hearing Age: median (quantiles): IG: 59.5 (1st 57; 3rd 60) years; CG: 62.55 (1st 61; 3rd 65) years Time since stroke onset: not reported except recruited up to 6 months after stroke Types of stroke: ischaemic hemispheric stroke Side of lesion: not reported
Interventions	Intervention group Brief name: computer CT Recipients: people with vascular cognitive impairments without dementia in early recovery periods of ischaemic hemispheric stroke Why: to correct poststroke cognitive impairments in acute and early recovery periods based on the "classical neuropsychological approach of Alexander Luria". What (materials): KrasSMU complex of neuropsychological software programs for cognitive correction (in Russian); the software is reportedly available on CD, and online; includes programs for training: visual and spatial gnosis using the computer‐based "Figure‐Background" test with a feedback mode and a gradually decreasing intensity of background noise. A picture with decreasing intensity of background noise was presented on a computer screen. There were several different pictures without a background in the top part of the screen. 1 picture corresponded to the image presented in the task with the noise; other pictures represented various images of objects and letters: see Figure 1 in paper for a picture of the screen for this program; visual and spatial memory training using pattern position‐test aimed at getting the participant to remember the position of images, with a gradually increasing number of objects (images of books, berries, etc.) in cells of a square: see Figure 2 in paper for a picture of the screen for this program; visual memory, using tasks for the memorisation of sequences of non‐verbal patterns (not further described); spatial gnosis arranging clock hands (not further described); impetuosity correction (not further described); speed counting (not further described); attention using a computer‐based Shulte's tables test (not further described). What (procedures): an instructor demonstrated how to use a computer and explained the tasks and rules for each training program in the first few sessions then participants could train independently, remaining under the supervision of the instructor. Procedures for Figure‐Background test and Visual and Position test described in depth: Figure‐Background program: patient identified the image in the picture with noise, and clicked on the corresponding image in the top part of the screen. There was then a gradual reduction of noise intensity, up to its complete disappearance. The participant needed to recognise the image quickly. The speed of recognition was assessed on a scale of 0–10. The accuracy of performance was marked by applause or a signal "incorrect" (see Figure 1 in paper); Pattern position program: after presentation of various pictures arranged in cells, the pictures were hidden, and then the participant was asked to click on the cells where pictures he or she remembered were located. After a correct performance, the number of objects for memorisation was increased by 1. Training continued until the participant made 2 mistakes, and was followed by the appearance of information about the speed and correctness of answers, and the highest volume of information memorised on a screen (Figure 2). Then, the participant advances to the next level, where the quantity of cells increases. Who provided: not clearly stated in paper; however, the authors confirmed in personal correspondence about the same intervention provided in Prokopenko 2013 that the sessions were conducted by occupational therapists. How: individual face‐to‐face training using computer software programs; an instructor demonstrated how to use a computer and explained the tasks and rules for each training program during the first few sessions, then participants could train independently, while under the supervision of the instructor. Where: in a neurorehabilitation centre; also stated that participants could use the programs online. When and how much: 10 daily sessions for 30–40 minutes (5 hours to 6 hours 40 minutes in total) Tailoring: supervision was provided throughout so that individual support could be provided as needed. Levels of complexity could be increased depending on participants' abilities. Modifications: none reported How well (planned): none reported How well (actual): none reported Comparator group Brief name: conventional treatment Recipients: people with vascular cognitive impairments without dementia in early recovery periods of ischaemic hemispheric stroke Why: to provide conventional rehabilitation What: physiotherapy and drug treatment without any cognitive rehabilitation Who provided: neurorehabilitation centre staff How: not described but presumably face‐to‐face Where: not described but presumably in the neurorehabilitation unit 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 IADL MMSE MoCA FAB Schulte's Test Other Clock Drawing Test HADS A, HADS D NIHSS Methods of data collection: evaluation of the participants' neurological, cognitive, affective, and functional states was performed before and after the observational period (the first examination during the first/second days on admission, and the second examination on the day after the last day of training). Data collection time points: before and after intervention (baseline and 10 days)
Notes	Funding: not reported Conflict of interest: not reported Published trial protocol: not reported Trial registration: not reported Ethics approval: yes Data: median (1st, 3rd quantiles) converted to means and SDs
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "A simple randomization using simple random tables was performed".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not reported but apparent that participants could have known to which group they were allocated.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Study did not address this criterion.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No protocol located but appeared all planned outcomes were reported except data for Clinicians Global Impression Scale and Patient's Global Impression Scale was not provided, which is not of interest to this review.
Other bias	Low risk	No other identifiable bias.