Comparison 2. Subgroup analyses: RCT versus quasi‐RCT.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Graft loss: censored for death	17	2540	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.78 [0.62, 0.99]
1.1 RCT	15	2366	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.79 [0.62, 1.01]
1.2 quasi‐RCT	2	174	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.56 [0.19, 1.67]
2 Acute rejection (total)	22	3301	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.65 [0.57, 0.73]
2.1 RCT	20	3127	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.65 [0.58, 0.72]
2.2 quasi‐RCT	2	174	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.77 [0.25, 2.40]
3 Infection: CMV viraemia/syndrome	13	2880	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.85, 1.32]
3.1 RCT	11	2706	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.12 [0.89, 1.42]
3.2 quasi‐RCT	2	174	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.66 [0.37, 1.17]
4 Graft function, serum creatinine	15	2233	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.05 [‐0.05, 0.15]
4.1 RCT	15	2233	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.05 [‐0.05, 0.15]
4.2 quasi‐RCT	0	0	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]