Prokopenko 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: parallel RCT (note: data only for 2 groups included in this review: study group (IG) and passive CG) Duration of trial: not reported Unit of randomisation: people aged 40–65 years, in the early and late recovery period following first hemispheric ischaemic stroke, with cognitive impairments Recruitment and allocation: not reported in detail; 68 participants receiving restorative treatment at a neurorehabilitation centre were randomised into 3 groups: a study group (IG) (neuropsychological computer programs) (n = 23), an active CG (distracting games) (n = 19), and a passive CG (standard rehabilitation) (n = 26); data only for the IG and passive CG were used in this review.
Participants	Setting: neurorehabilitation centre Country: Russia Sample size: 49 adults, 65% men; IG: 23; passive CG: 26 Inclusion criteria: aged 40–65 years, early and late recovery period following first hemispheric ischaemic stroke, cognitive impairments at the stage of mild and moderate disorders, informed consent Exclusion criteria: somatic and neurological diseases in the stage of decompensation, presence of epileptic seizures or epileptic activity on the electroencephalogram, age outside the specified range, profound cognitive or aphatic impairments, visual or auditory pathology preventing sessions Age: mean: IG: 59.0 (95% CI 54.9 to 66.5); CG: 60.5 (95% CI 55.8 to 68.8) Time since stroke onset: not reported except recruited in early and late recovery period Types of stroke: hemispheric ischaemic stroke Side of lesion: not reported
Interventions	Intervention group Brief name: neuropsychological computer training Recipients: people in the early and late recovery period following first hemispheric ischaemic stroke, with cognitive impairments Why: to provide low‐cost stimulation of several cognitive functions "with automatic changes in loadings and assessment of point scores" and ensuring high‐level compliance through high motivation from play aspects of the programmes. What (materials): the authors' set of original computerised stimulation programs (KrasSMU complex of neuropsychological computer programs), in Russian including: optical‐spatial gnostic training using a computerised version of the "Figure‐Background" test (see Figure 1 in paper); visuospatial memory training using tests based on remembering the position of a card (see Figure 2 in paper); training of attention using computerised Schulte's Tables; training of visual memory using tests for remembering sequences of symbols which are difficult to verbalise; training of optical‐spatial gnosis using a clock hands position test; program to correct impulsivity and the concentration of attention; program for training to count. What (procedures): in addition to complex restorative treatment, participants completed courses of sessions using the neuropsychological computerised stimulation programs. Who provided: not 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: not reported but appeared to be face‐to‐face and individually Where: neurorehabilitation centre When and how much: daily for 10 days, each session lasting 30–40 minutes (5 hours to 6 hours 40 minutes in total) Tailoring: programmes provided "automatic changes in loadings" presumably in response to performance Modifications: none reported How well (planned): none reported How well (actual): none reported Comparator group Brief name: standard rehabilitation Recipients: people in the early and late recovery period following first hemispheric ischaemic stroke, with cognitive impairments Why: to provide standard rehabilitation. What: motor rehabilitation only Who provided: not reported How: not described but presumably face‐to‐face and individually Where: neurorehabilitation centre 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 Tables Other Clock Drawing Test HADS A, HADS D NIHSS Methods of data collection: no details provided except that participants were assessed before and after treatment. Data collection time points: before and after treatment (baseline and 10 days)
Notes	Funding: none reported Conflict of interest: none Published trial protocol: no Trial registration: no Ethics approval: none reported Data: median and 95% CI data converted to means and SDs by a method described in University College London 2010.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method not reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method 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 reported but it appeared that all planned outcomes were reported.
Other bias	Low risk	No other identifiable bias.