Table 4.

Details of the adherence-adjusted analyses performed.

Study	Reason	Type	Differences in inference
Per protocol
Acolet et al.[37]	Exploratory	Binary	PP* not shown, stated similar to ITT*
Auger et al. [38]	Unclear	Binary	ITT not done
Beer et al. [39]	Unclear	Binary	Evidence of effect with PP, but not with ITT
Bickman et al.[40]	Unclear	Binary	No change
Boorsma et al.[24]c	Unclear	Binary	Evidence of effect with PP, but not with ITT
Cooke et al. [41]	Unclear	Binarya	ITT not done
Cutrer et al. [42]	Unclear	Binary	ITT not done
Dangour et al. [25]c	Exploratory	Binary	No change
Estrada et al.[43]	Unclear	Binary	No change
Luoto et al.[26]c	Unclear	Binary	No change
Neuzil et al.[23]c,d	Safety	Binary	No change
Smith et al. [44]	Additional analyses	Binary	No change
Tagbor et al. [28]d	Unclear	Binaryb,d	Evidence of effect with PP, but not with ITT
Taveras et al. [45]	Unclear	Binary	No change
Zurovac et al.[46]	Unclear	Binary	No change
As-treated
Stiell et al. [47]	Additional analyses	Binary	No change
Zamorano et al. [27]c	Efficacy	Binary	ITT not done
LaBella et al. [48]	Unclear	Continuous	Evidence of effect with ITT, but not with AT
Levine et al. [49]	Unclear	Continuous	AT not shown

^*PP: Per protocol analysis, ITT: Intention to treat analysis

^aThe threshold chosen to define the binary non-adherence was based on a previous study.

^bAll possible definitions of binary adherence explored (> 1 dose,> 2 doses and full exposure)

^cCarried out a safety outcome analysis.

^dFailed to adjust for clustering in the analysis.