Table 2.

Methodological quality and risk of bias assessment.

Primary author; study name	Power calculation	Sample size achieved (reason for stopping early)	Attrition (n/%)	Adequate sequence generation	Allocation concealment	Blinding of participants/ personnel	Blinding of outcome assessment	Incomplete outcome data	Selective outcome reporting	Free of other problems	Overall risk of bias
Berkhemer et al.: MR CLEAN8	Yes	Yes	2/0.4%	Low risk	Low risk	High riska	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low
Campbell et al.: EXTEND:IA31	Yes	No (efficacy)	N/A	Low risk	Low risk	High riska	Low risk	N/A	Low risk	Low risk	Low
Goyal et al.: ESCAPE32	Yes	No (efficacy)	N/A	Low risk	Low risk	High riska	Low risk	N/A	Low risk	Low risk	Low
Jovin et al.: REVASCAT33	Yes	No (efficacy)	N/A	Low risk	Low risk	High riska	Low risk	N/A	Low risk	Low risk	Low
Saver et al.: SWIFT PRIME34	Yes	No (efficacy)	N/A	Low risk	Low risk	High riska	Low risk	N/A	Low risk	Low risk	Low
Mocco et al.: THERAPY12	Yes	No (loss of equipoise)	N/A	Low risk	Low risk	High riska	Low risk	N/A	Low risk	Low risk	Low
Bracard et al.: THRACE13	Yes	No (efficacy)	N/A	Low risk	Low risk	High riska	Low risk	N/A	Low risk	Low risk	Low
Muir et al.: PISTE14	Yes	No (loss of equipoise)	N/A	Low risk	Low risk	High riska	Low risk	N/A	Low risk	Low risk	Low

^aNot feasible to blind interventionists and was unlikely to have biased outcome in these trials.