DSMM‐I.

Methods	Randomisation of patients with at least stable disease after induction and successful stem‐cell mobilisation Multicentre (N= 46‐49) RCT addressing superiority of experimental SASCT regimen compared to trial; TASCT
Participants	TASCT N=98; SASCT N=100 ≤60 years; de novo or max. < 6 cycles of "conventional Ctx" Salmon‐Durie stage II and III (Baseline characteristics Table 2)
Interventions	2 x 200 mg/m² melphalan TASCT compared to experimental SASCT (chemo‐radio conditioning regimen) (Treatment plan Table 3)
Outcomes	OS, EFS (primary endpoint), so‐called TRM (Definitions of endpoints Table 4; Table 5)
Period and Location	Aug. 98 – Jan. 02 in Germany and Italy (USA?)
Sample size calculation	Not reported
ITT analysis (n of drop‐outs)	Yes (unclear)
Notes	Conference presentations with some inconsistencies Safety population differs notably from ITT population (TASCT N=118; SASCT N=80) Data likely immature Total follow‐up of only 48‐61 months according to Kaplan‐Meier graph (reported as median follow‐up) Potential confounding by cross‐over from SASCT to TASCT in 18% of patients and by subsequent treatment
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	NR
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	NR
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Unavoidable in view of obvious difference in treatment plan
Other bias	High risk	See Table 6 and Figure 2