Bañares 2002.

Methods	Single‐blind, parallel‐arm, single‐centre randomised clinical trial evaluating primary prevention
Participants	51 participants with cirrhosis and endoscopically proven oesophageal varices without previous bleeding Proportion of men: carvedilol 73%; propranolol 60% Mean age: carvedilol 57.9 years; propranolol 58.4 years Proportion for primary prevention: carvedilol 100%; propranolol 100% Proportion with: alcohol‐related cirrhosis: carvedilol 23%; propranolol 36% hepatitis B‐related cirrhosis: carvedilol: 15%; propranolol 8% hepatitis C‐related cirrhosis: carvedilol 54%; propranolol 56% large varices: carvedilol 38%; propranolol 56% ascites: carvedilol 39%; propranolol 24%
Interventions	Intervention comparison: carvedilol vs propranolol Dose of carvedilol: 6.25 mg once daily titrated to a mean of 31 mg to achieve a 25% reduction in heart rate Dose of propranolol: 20 mg once daily titrated to a mean of 73 mg to achieve a 25% reduction in heart rate Treatment duration: approximately 3 months
Outcomes	Outcomes included in meta‐analysis: mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious adverse events, non‐serious adverse events; reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient and haemodynamic response (gradient reduction by ≥ 20% from baseline or to ≤ 12 mmHg) after a mean period of 11 weeks.
Country of origin	Spain
Publication status	Full‐paper
Inclusion period	Not reported
Notes	The publication does not describe the type of serious adverse events. The discussion section gives the impression that serious adverse events were associated with systemic hypotension, although this is not stated specifically.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated random numbers
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Serially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Open trial without blinding of participants or personnel
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Blinding of outcome assessment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	The trial only describes per protocol analyses in the haemodynamic assessments.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	The trial report does not describe the types of serious adverse events. We did not have access to the trial protocol.
For‐profit funding	Low risk	No for‐profit funding
Other bias	Low risk	No other biases
Overall bias assessment (mortality)	High risk	High risk of bias
Overall bias assessment (non‐mortality outcomes)	High risk	High risk of bias