Item	Judgment	Description
1. Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	The investigators describe a random component in the sequence generation process such as random number table; computer random number generator; coin tossing; shuffling cards or envelopes; throwing dice; drawing of lots; and minimization
	High risk	The investigators describe a non‐random component in the sequence generation process such as odd or even date of birth; date (or day) of admission; hospital or clinic record number; alternation; judgement of the clinician; results of a laboratory test or a series of tests; and availability of the intervention
	Unclear risk	Insufficient information about the sequence generation process to permit judgement of low or high risk
2. Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Investigators enrolling participants could not foresee assignment because one of the following, or an equivalent method, was used to conceal allocation: central allocation (including telephone, Web‐based, and pharmacy‐controlled, randomisation); sequentially numbered drug containers of identical appearance; and sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes
	High risk	Investigators enrolling participants could possibly foresee assignments because one of the following methods was used: open random allocation schedule (e.g. a list of random numbers); assignment envelopes without appropriate safeguards (e.g. if envelopes were unsealed or non­opaque or were not sequentially numbered); alternation or rotation; date of birth; case record number; and any other explicitly unconcealed procedure
	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement of low or high risk. This is usually the case if the method of concealment is not described or is not described in sufficient detail to allow a definite judgement
3. Blinding of participants and providers (performance bias). Objective outcomes	Low risk	No blinding or incomplete blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding Blinding of participants and key study personnel ensured, and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken
4. Blinding of participants and providers (performance bias). Subjective outcomes	Low risk	Blinding of participants and  providers and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken
	High risk	No blinding or incomplete blinding, and the outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding Blinding of key study participants and personnel attempted, but likely that the blinding could have been broken, and the outcome is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement of low or high risk
5. Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias). Objective outcomes	Low risk	No blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding Blinding of outcome assessment ensured, and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken
6. Blinding of outcome assessor (detection  bias). Subjective outcomes	Low risk	No blinding of outcome assessment, but the review authors judge that the outcome measurement is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding Blinding of outcome assessment ensured, and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken
	High risk	No blinding of outcome assessment, and the outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding Blinding of outcome assessment, but likely that the blinding could have been broken, and the outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement of low or high risk
7. Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). For all outcomes except retention in treatment or dropout	Low risk	No missing outcome data Reasons for missing outcome data unlikely to be related to true outcome (for survival data, censoring unlikely to be introducing bias) Missing outcome data balanced in numbers across intervention groups, with similar reasons for missing data across groups For dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on the intervention effect estimate For continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or standardised difference in means) among missing outcomes not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on observed effect size Missing data have been imputed using appropriate methods All randomly assigned participants are reported/analysed in the group to which they were allocated by randomisation irrespective of non‐compliance and co‐interventions (intention to treat)
	High risk	Reason for missing outcome data likely to be related to true outcome, with either imbalance in numbers or reasons for missing data across intervention groups For dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk enough to induce clinically relevant bias in intervention effect estimate For continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or standardised difference in means) among missing outcomes enough to induce clinically relevant bias in observed effect size ‘As‐treated’ analysis done with substantial departure of the intervention received from that assigned at randomisation
	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement of low or high risk (e.g. number randomised not stated; no reasons for missing data provided; number of dropouts not reported for each group)
8. Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The study protocol is available, and all of the study’s prespecified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest in the review have been reported in the prespecified way The study protocol is not available, but it is clear thatpublished reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were prespecified (convincing text of this nature may be uncommon)
	High risk	Not all of the study’s prespecified primary outcomes have been reported One or more primary outcomes are reported using measurements, analysis methods or subsets of the data (e.g. subscales) that were not prespecified One or more reported primary outcomes were not prespecified (unless clear justification for their reporting is provided, such as an unexpected adverse effect) One or more outcomes of interest in the review are reported incompletely, so that they cannot be entered into a meta‐analysis The study report fails to include results for a key outcome that would be expected to have been reported for such a study
	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement of low or high risk