Table A2:

Risk of Bias Among Randomized Controlled Trials for the Comparison of Mechanical Thrombectomy and Clinical Outcomes

Author, Year	Allocation Concealments	Blindingb	Complete Accounting of Patients and Outcome Events	Selective Reporting Bias	Other Limitationsc
Berkhemer et al, 201527	No limitations	No limitations	No limitations	Limitationsd	No limitations
Campbell et al, 201528	No limitations	No limitations	No limitations	No limitations	Limitationse
Goyal et al, 201529	No limitations	No limitations	No limitations	Limitationsd	Limitationse
Jovin et al, 201530	No limitations	No limitations	No limitations	No limitations	Limitationse
Saver et al, 201531	No limitations	No limitations	No limitations	No limitations	Limitationse

Abbreviations: RCT, randomized controlled trial.

^aAll five RCTs used a web-based randomized minimization procedure.

^bAll five included RCTs had blind outcome evaluation, but physicians conducting the intervention were aware of treatment assignment. This was appropriate, as a sham procedure was not ethical, and the standard of care is intravenous thrombolysis, which is a more appropriate comparator.

^cAll five studies had grant support from Covidien/ev3 (the company that manufactures the Solitaire FR stent retriever) and/or other manufacturers/industry support.

^dProtocol states the functional outcome measured by the Academic Linear Disability Scale would be collected at 90 days, but this outcome was not reported in the published article.

^eAfter the Berkhemer et al (28) study was published, the four following RCTs stopped early based on prespecified boundaries for efficacy during interim analysis.

^fProtocol states the functional outcome measured by miFUNCTION scale would be collected, but this outcome was not reported in the published article.