| Study |
Bias |
| Randomisation process |
Deviations from intended interventions |
Missing outcome data |
Measurement of the outcome |
Selection of the reported results |
Overall |
| Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Akeel 2022 |
Low risk of bias |
Allocation concealed, sequence generation random and baseline characteristics does not reveal any imbalance between the two groups. |
Low risk of bias |
Though the personnel were aware of the intervention allocation, but there seems to be no deviations that arouse outside the trial context. Also all patients analysed as randomised. |
Low risk of bias |
Data reasonably complete for all the included patients. |
Some concerns |
Since clinical judgement was used to ascertain seizure control, and that the assessors were aware of the intervention, there is a likelihood of assessment being influenced by the knowledge of the allocation group. The authors have given details of the seizure definition used and who diagnosed the seizures. |
Some concerns |
Trial protocol not available. |
High risk of bias |
Some concerns in more than one domain. |
| Gowda 2019 |
Low risk of bias |
Allocation concealed, sequence generation random and baseline characteristics does not reveal any imbalance between the two groups. |
Low risk of bias |
Single blinded study with the personnel aware of the intervention allocation, but there seems to be no deviations that arouse outside the trial context. Also all patients analysed as randomised. |
Low risk of bias |
Data reasonably complete for all the included patients |
High risk of bias |
Since the outcome is a subjective one and that the assessors were aware of the intervention, there is a likelihood of assessment being influenced by the knowledge of the allocation group. There is no clear definition for different seizure types, how it was differentiated from non‐epiletic events and how it was assesed and by whom. |
Low risk of bias |
Trial analysed as per a priori registered protocol. |
High risk of bias |
High risk in one domain |
| Susnerwala 2022 |
Low risk of bias |
Allocation concealed, sequence generation random and baseline characteristics does not reveal any imbalance between the two groups. |
Low risk of bias |
Though the personnel were aware of the intervention allocation, but there seems to be no deviations that arouse outside the trial context. Also all patients analysed as randomised. |
Low risk of bias |
Data reasonably complete for all the included patients. |
Some concerns |
Since clinical judgement was used to ascertain seizure control, and that the assessors were aware of the intervention, there is a likelihood of assessment being influenced by the knowledge of the allocation group. The authors have given details of the seizure definition used and who diagnosed the seizures. |
Low risk of bias |
Trial analysed as per a priori registered protocol. |
Some concerns |
Some concerns in one domain. |
