Harmsen 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomized clinical trial
Participants	Patients were recruited from the outpatient clinic of Rijndam Rehabilitation Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands 37 participants: 18 in experimental group; 19 in control group. Inclusion criteria: Brunnstrom score for upper‐extremity function between III and VI, a home‐dwelling status, and at least 6 months poststroke Exclusion criteria: presence of neglect, comorbidities that influence voluntary upper‐extremity function, or multiple strokes Mean (SD) age: experimental group: 57 (10.4) years, control group: 60 (8.8) years Stroke details: experimental group: 13 ischemic, 5 hemorrhagic; control group: 12 ischemic, 7 hemorrhagic Stroke phase: chronic
Interventions	Experimental group (mirror therapy–based AO): sets of affected‐arm reaching movements, alternated with periods of observation. Participants observed mirrored video tapes (the video screen was positioned in the midsagittal plane) of reaching movements performed by their unaffected arm. Control group: sets of affected‐arm reaching movements, alternated with periods of observation. Participants observed static photographs of landscapes (the video screen was positioned in the midsagittal plane).   Participants trained for 1 day: 3 minutes of AO, 30 repetitions of reaching, 1 minute of AO, 20 repetitions of reaching, 1 minute of AO, 20 repetitions of reaching, and 1 last minute of AO
Outcomes	Outcome recorded at baseline and postintervention Movement time of reaching: accelerometer
Notes	The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated random code using blocks of 20 participants
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Use of sealed envelopes. Authors did not report if envelopes were opaque or sequentially numbered.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No blinding, but the outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Authors did not report if there was blinding of outcome assessment.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No withdraw was reported. There was no loss of data after intervention
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The study protocol is available and the outcomes were reported in accordance with what has been proposed DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN40128145
Other bias	Low risk	No other potential risk of bias was found.