Comparison 2. Sensitivity analysis for the primary outcome.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Overall risk of bias: high	2	218	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.16 [0.03, 1.00]
2 Overall risk of bias: unclear	6	1000	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.39 [0.27, 0.55]
3 Overall risk of bias: low	2	954	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.55 [0.44, 0.69]
4 Excluding large studies	5	315	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.36 [0.22, 0.58]
5 Sensitivity analysis excluding one study at a time	10		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
5.1 Excluded Leenders 1997	9	2144	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.49 [0.40, 0.59]
5.2 Excluded Prentice1997	9	1834	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.49 [0.38, 0.61]
5.3 Excluded Leenders 1998	9	2066	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.50 [0.41, 0.61]
5.4 Excluded Walsh 1999	9	1485	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.42 [0.32, 0.55]
5.5 Excluded Johnson 2002a	9	2095	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.50 [0.41, 0.60]
5.6 Excluded Bodhe 2002	9	2133	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.46 [0.36, 0.58]
5.7 Excluded Sundar 2004	9	2019	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.49 [0.41, 0.59]
5.8 Excluded Hamill 2010	9	1915	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.45 [0.34, 0.58]
5.9 Excluded Sundar 2010	9	1770	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.47 [0.37, 0.59]
5.10 Excluded Jadhav 2012	9	2117	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.48 [0.39, 0.59]
6 Excluding studies with off‐label use of liposomal amphotericin B	8	1607	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.49 [0.41, 0.59]