Table 4.

Risk-of-Bias Assessment for Within Study Comparisons.

Bias domain	Buddelmeyer and Skoufias (2004) *	Diaz and Handa (2006) *	Handa and Maluccio (2010) **	McKenzie et al. (2010) ***	Barrera-Osorio et al. (2014) ****	Galiani and McEwan (2013) ; Galiani et al. (2017) *****	Chaplin et al. (2017)
Bias arising from the randomisation process	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	Low risk	Low risk	Some concerns
Selection bias in recruitment	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	Low risk	Low risk	Some concerns
Departure from intended treatment^	Some concerns	Some concerns	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Some concerns
Attrition bias due to missing outcome data	High risk	High risk	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	Low risk	Low risk
Bias in measurement of the outcome^	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk
Bias in selection of the reported result^	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk
Bias in NRS estimate	Low risk	Some concerns	Some concerns	Low risk	Low risk	Some concerns	Low risk
Overall bias in within-study comparison	High risk	High risk	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns	Some concerns

Notes: * assessment draws on (Diaz & Handa, 2005), Behrman and Todd (1999), Skoufias et al. (2001), Angelucci and de Giorgi (2006) and Rubalcava et al. (2009); ** assessment draws on Maluccio and Flores (2004, 2005); *** assessment is of the instrumental variables estimate for the randomised sample; **** assessment draws on Barrera-Osorio and Filmer (2016); ***** assessment draws on Glewwe and Olinto (2004); ^ assessment takes into account relevance of the domain for relative bias regarding within-study comparison.

Source: authors using Higgins et al. (2016), Eldridge et al. (2016) and (Hombrados & Waddington, 2012).