Risk of bias for analysis 5.2 General cognitive screening ‐ paired assessment < 12 months.

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

Kazui 2015

Low risk of bias

Yes random block design, concealed. Both groups were well matched for age and symptom profile..

Some concerns

No deviations but there were 5 patients from 93 who did not receive the intended interevention as they withdrew or became ill. Per protocol analysis used. Drop‐outs were few and there was 86% follow up available with reasonable explanation for drop outs. Is not a near total dataset though.

Some concerns

36 of 44 (86%) randomised had follow up data for this outcome. The vast majority of cases had reasonable non‐shunt explanation for their lack fo outcome data.

Low risk of bias

Outcome assessors were blinded.

Low risk of bias

Selected result was appropriate.

Some concerns

Some concerns of bias due to missing data adn use of per protocol analysis.

Luciano 2023

Low risk of bias

No additional comments.

Low risk of bias

No deviations.

Low risk of bias

8 of 9 cases in each group had data for this outcome.

Low risk of bias

Oucome assessors were blinded to group allocation.

Low risk of bias

Selected result was appropriate.

Low risk of bias

Low risk of bias for all domains of this outcome.