Skip to main content
. 2023 Oct 24;2023(10):CD014967. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014967.pub2

Risk of bias for analysis 2.10 Proportion of infants with an abnormal background pattern in EEG after stopping ASM.

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
Falsaperla 2019 Some concerns No information on allocation concealment, but baseline characteristics do not show any differences 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 Low risk of bias Being an objective outcome, it is unlikely that assessment of the outcome would be influenced by knowledge of allocation group Some concerns A trial protocol is not available for assessment High risk of bias Some concerns in more than one domain