| 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 |
Some concerns |
Since the outcome is a subjective one and that there is no information on whether assessors were aware of the intervention allocation and there is a likelihood of assessment being influenced by the knowledge of the allocation group, a high risk was adjudged for this domain. |
Low risk of bias |
Low risk across all domains |
Some concerns |
Some concerns 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 |
Low risk of bias |
It was a double blinded RCT and hence the outcome assessors are blinded to allocation |
Low risk of bias |
Trial analysed as per a priori registered protocol. |
Low risk of bias |
Low risk across all domains |
