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 |
Srinivasakumar 2015 |
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 |
Low risk of bias |
Being an objective outcome (EEG used), it is unlikely that assessment of the outcome would be influenced by knowledge of allocation group |
Low risk of bias |
Trial analysed as per a priori registered protocol. |
Low risk of bias |
Low risk across all domains |
Van Rooji 2010 |
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 |
Though 9 out of 42 patients randomised were excluded, the reasons for the same are stated and they do not differ substantially between the groups, thus indicating that the results might not be biased. |
Low risk of bias |
Being an objective outcome, it is unlikely that assessment of the outcome would be influenced by knowledge of allocation group |
Low risk of bias |
Trial analysed as per a priori registered protocol. |
Low risk of bias |
Low risk across all domains |