Zongo 2007 BFA.

Methods	Trial design: A 3‐arm RCT Follow‐up: A standardized history, examination, and malaria film on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42. Hb measured on days 0 and 42 or day of clinical failure. Children with Hb < 10 g/dL were treated with ferrous sulphate and antihelminthic treatment. Adverse event monitoring: Assessed at each visit. Adverse events defined as untoward medical occurrences.
Participants	Number of participants: 580 Inclusion criteria: Age > 6 months, weight > 5 kg, axillary temp > 37.5 °C or history of fever in the last 24 hrs, P. falciparum mono‐infection 2000 to 200,000/µL, the ability to participate in 42 days follow‐up, informed consent. Exclusion criteria: Danger signs or signs of severe malaria, history of serious adverse effects related to trial medications, evidence of concomitant febrile illness, antimalarial use other than chloroquine in previous two weeks, Hb < 5 g/dL.
Interventions	1. DHA‐P, fixed dose combination, 40 mg/320 mg tablets (Duocotexin: HolleyPharm) Total dose: DHA 6.4 mg/kg + PQP 51.2 mg/kg in 3 divided doses, given once daily for 3 days 2. Artemether‐lumefantrine, fixed dose combination, 20 mg/120 mg tablets (Coartem: Novartis) 5 to 14 kg 1 tablet twice daily for 3 days 15 to 24 kg 2 tablets twice daily for 3 days 25 to 34 kg 3 tablets twice daily for 3 days > 35 kg 4 tablets twice daily for 3 days 3. Amodiaquine plus sulfadoxine‐pyrimethamine, loose combination (Flavoquine: Aventis, Fansidar: Roche) AQ 10 mg/kg once daily on days 0 and 1, then 5 mg/kg once on day 2 SP 25/1.25 mg/kg on day 0 All doses supervised
Outcomes	Risk of treatment failure at days 42 and 28, PCR‐adjusted and PCR‐unadjusted Gametocyte development during follow‐up Hb (mean g/dL) on day 0 and last day of follow‐up Adverse events Not included in this review: Fever clearance Parasite clearance
Notes	Country: Burkino Faso Setting: Health dispensaries Transmission: Holoendemic, transmission principally in the rainy season May to Oct Resistance: Not reported Dates: Not reported Funding: Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Holley Cotec Pharmaceuticals, International Atomic Energy Agency, National Budget of the Institut de Recherche en Sciences de la Sante
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Randomly assigned on the basis of a computer‐generated code provided by an off‐site investigator".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Referred for treatment allocation by a study nurse not involved in enrolment or assessment of treatment outcomes".
Blinding for microscopy outcomes (performance bias and detection bias)	High risk	"The study was not blinded".
Blinding for adverse events (performance and detection bias)	High risk	As above.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Low losses to follow‐up in all groups (8% DHA‐P versus 6.4% AL6 versus 8.2% AQ+SP).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All WHO outcomes reported. Day 42 outcomes may underestimate treatment failure with DHA‐P due to its long half‐life.
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias identified.