| 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 |
| Pathak 2013 |
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 |
Though EEG was performed, it was done after 48‐72 hours of clinical resolution of seizures. 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 |
| Solanki 2015 |
High risk of bias |
There is no information on allocation concealment and baseline characteristics suggest a mismatch between the two groups despite randomisation. |
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 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. 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. |
High risk of bias |
High risk in one domain |
