Kim 2016.

Methods	Parallel‐arm, open‐label, multi‐centre, randomised clinical trial evaluating primary prevention
Participants	110 participants with cirrhosis, endoscopically verified grade 2 or 3 varices, and no previous bleeding Proportion of men: carvedilol 74.5%; propranolol 76.4% Mean age: carvedilol 51.7 years; propranolol 70.6 years Proportion for primary prevention: carvedilol 100%; propranolol 100% Proportion with: alcohol‐related cirrhosis: carvedilol 60%; propranolol 61.8% hepatitis B‐related cirrhosis: carvedilol 29.1%; propranolol 27.3% hepatitis C‐related cirrhosis: carvedilol 5.5%; propranolol 7.3% large varices: carvedilol 100%; propranolol 100% carvedilol: grade 2 81.8%; grade 3 18.2% propranolol: grade 2 80%; grade 3 20% ascites: carvedilol 60%; propranolol 60%
Interventions	Intervention comparison: carvedilol vs propranolol Dose of carvedilol: initially 6.25 mg once daily, increased to 12.5 mg; mean 11.6 mg/dL (range 6.25‐12.5 mg/dL) Dose of propranolol: initially 20 mg twice daily, titrated until heart rate decreased by 25%, or to 55 beats per minute; mean 152.6 mg/dL (range 40‐320 mg/dL) Treatment duration: 6 weeks
Outcomes	Outcomes included in meta‐analysis: mortality, variceal bleeding, adverse events, reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient, treatment response (gradient reduction by ≥ 20% from baseline or to < 12 mmHg), after 6 weeks
Country of origin	Korea
Publication status	Full‐paper
Inclusion period	August 2012‐December 2014
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated, random number table, block size of 2 and stratified block randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Open trial without blinding or participants or personnel
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Open trial without blinding of outcome assessment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing outcome data. All participants are accounted for and included in the analyses.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Clinically relevant outcomes are reported. We did not have access to the trial protocol.
For‐profit funding	High risk	Received funding from ChongKunDang Pharmaceutical
Other bias	Low risk	No other biases identified
Overall bias assessment (mortality)	High risk	High risk of bias
Overall bias assessment (non‐mortality outcomes)	High risk	High risk of bias