| 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 |
| Jindal 2021 |
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 |
High risk of bias |
Diagnosis of seizures was based on clinical assessment and not EEG. Hence, there is a likelihood that assessment might have been influenced by knowledge of allocation. 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 |
| Saxena 2016 |
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 |
Double‐blinded study and neither the participants nor the treating physicians were aware of the allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
Data reasonably complete for all the included patients till hospital discharge,Though many of the enrolled patients were lost to follow up, it was balanced between the two groups. Hence, it seems that the result is not biased as reasons for lost to follow up does not differ significantly between the groups. |
High risk of bias |
Diagnosis of seizures was based on clinical assessment and not EEG. Hence, there is a likelihood that assessment might have been influenced by knowledge of allocation. 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 |
