Poordad 2011a2

Methods	For characteristics see Poordad 2011a1
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated random code
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocation concealment was done through interactive voice‐response system
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	In the trial's protocol it is described that placebo would be matched to boceprevir and would be given in the same manner
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	It was not mentioned if the outcome assessors were blinded, or the extent of blinding was insufficiently described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	49/1099 (4.5%) participants discontinued the peg‐IFN+RBV therapy during the lead‐in period. No specific reasons were given. Due to futility at week 24 another 108, 33, and 36 participants in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, discontinued treatment. In total 226/1099(20,5%) of participants discontinued treatment. No other drop‐outs were stated
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	A protocol was published before randomisation began and all outcome results were reported adequately
Vested‐interest bias	High risk	The sponsor (Merck) was directly involved in trial's design, managing, analyses, as well as, writing, decision of submission for publication, reviewing and drafting the manuscript
Other bias	Low risk	The trial appeared to be free of other bias domains that could put it at risk of bias