Albright 2002.

Methods	Design: retrospective cohort study. Study dates: November 1997 to January 2000 Malaria transmission pattern and local antimalarial drug resistance: various destinations, not specified. Adverse event monitoring: one off telephone interview with parents whose children had previously been prescribed antimalarial prophylaxis.
Participants	Number enrolled: 177 fit inclusion criteria and interviewed, 190 contacted Inclusion criteria: children aged ≤ 13 years who visited the travel clinic at the Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago within the study dates. Subjects who were not on other medications. Exclusion criteria: "...data were only included if the child was living with the interviewed parent while taking the antimalarial". "Unwillingness to participate in the study and language barriers". Factors influencing drug allocation: "children... instructed to take mefloquine or chloroquine for malaria prophylaxis". Country of recruitment: USA. Country of malaria exposure: various; Africa 58%, Central or South America 21%, India 12% or Eastern Asia 9%. Duration of exposure to malaria: various, not specified. Type of participants: travellers
Interventions	1. Mefloquine* 2. Chloroquine* *dosing regimen not specified
Outcomes	1. Adverse effects; any, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, headache, insomnia, abnormal dreams 2. Serious adverse effects 3. Discontinuations of study drug due to adverse effects
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Other bias	Unclear risk	1. Confounding: moderate Age, sex and destination of travel were recorded, but were not reported across prophylactic regimens 2. Selection of participants into the study: low Non‐response rate 1.6% 3. Measurement of interventions: moderate The prescription was provided by a travel clinic, but participants were asked to recall if they discontinued their medication 2.8 to 28 months after visiting 4. Departures from intended interventions: serious Information was collected up to 2 years after taking the drug. No information was captured on switches. 5. Missing data: low All information was collected at one time point, there were no losses to follow‐up. 6. Measurement of outcomes: serious The outcome measure was subjective, participants and personnel were not blinded. 7. Selection of the reported results: low All outcomes included in the introduction were reported in the results 8. Other: low "The authors had no financial or other conflicts of interest to disclose"