The methodological quality of each study was assessed by 2
independent reviewers (R.v.P., G.K.) by applying an adapted methodological
scoring list derived from a list developed by Kwakkel et
al3 and Cambach.13 The original list contained 16 items, with each
scored on a binary scale. Because the present review was focused
only on RCTs, items 2 and 3 were deleted so that 14 questions
remained to be addressed (Table I, available online at http://
www.strokeaha.org). The revised tool showed good inter-rater reliability
according to Cohen kappa (!!0.85). When disagreement
between the 2 reviewers persisted, a third reviewer made the final
decision. Reviewers were not blind to author(s), institution(s), or
journal. One reviewer (R.v.P.) extracted all relevant data. The
following items were evaluated: (1) randomization and blinding
procedures; (2) descriptions of dropouts and intention-to-treat analysis;
(3) reliability and validity of assessment instruments; (4)
control for cointervention(s); (5) comparability of baseline patient
characteristics; and (6) presentation of amount of therapy provided.