Bishop 2010.

Methods	Multicentre, parallel, double‐blinded RCT dose‐ranging trial of risedronate.
Participants	53 children randomised and 48 received treatment 0.2 mg/kg/wk = 17  1 mg/kg/wk = 18    2 mg/kg/wk = 18 Mean age 0.2 mg/kg/wk = 10.8 (3.8 ‐ 17) years  1 mg/kg/wk = 10.8 (5.2 ‐ 16.5) years 2 mg/kg/wk = 11 (5.8 ‐ 17) years Sex of participants (M/F) 0.2 mg/kg/wk = 6/11    1 mg/kg/wk = 8/10     2 mg/kg/wk = 4/14 OI type (I, III, IV) 0.2 mg/kg/wk = 0/4/13   1 mg/kg/wk = 0/2/16    2 mg/kg/wk = 1/1/16
Interventions	Children were randomised to receive 0.2 mg, 1 mg or 2 mg/kg/week risedronate for 2 years, dose prescribed to the nearest 5 mg. Oral doses administered were multiples of the same tablet of sizes 2.5, 5, 15, 30 or 35 mg; for instance a child weighing 50 kg randomised to 2 mg/kg/week would receive 3 x 35 mg i.e. 105 mg.
Outcomes	Fracture reduction as assessed by skeletal survey Change in BMD Change in biochemical markers of bone/mineral metabolism Growth Bone pain/functional outcome Pediatric evaluation of disability inventory (PEDI) Gros motor function measure (GMFM) Grip strength at trial initiation vs 24 months
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomization was by multiple permuted blocks, stratified according to age (up to 10.99 years, or above) allocated by a remote telephone system.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocation was by a remote telephone system.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Children, their families and medical staff were blinded to the treatment assignment.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	5 participants withdrew during the 2‐year period of the trial and were lost to follow up. 1 child did not like the taste of the tablets, 1 developed an inflammatory bowel condition thought not to be related to the medication, 3 withdrew without giving a reason. The 5 children were distributed between groups 1/2/2. Consort diagram shown.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Bishop states that there was no difference between the groups in pain scores but no data was presented. For quality of life, data was not presented separately by treatment group.
Other bias	Low risk	None