| 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 |
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. |
Some concerns |
A trial protocol is not available for assessment |
High risk of bias |
High risk in one domain |
| Khan 2020 |
Some concerns |
No information on allocation concealment, but baseline characteristics do not show any differences 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 |
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. |
Some concerns |
A trial protocol is not available for assessment |
High risk of bias |
High risk in one domain |
