Piano 2016.

Methods	Randomised clinical trial
Participants	Country: Italy Number randomised: 32 Post‐randomisation dropouts: 1 Revised sample size: 31 Average age: 60 years Females: 12 (38.7%) Presence of other features of decompensation (hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, or variceal bleeding): not stated Alcohol‐related cirrhosis: both Viral‐related cirrhosis: both Autoimmune disease‐related cirrhosis (e.g. PSC, PBC, AIH): not stated Other causes for cirrhosis: both Treated for ascites in addition to antibiotics (e.g. albumin or diuretics): not stated Follow‐up in months: 3 Years of recruitment: 2011‐2014 Inclusion criteria Nosocomial SBP Exclusion criteria Secondary peritonitis Onset of infection ≤ 72 hours from hospitalisation Abdominal surgery in the previous 4 weeks Hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan Criteria Congestive heart failure and/or respiratory failure Treatment with third‐generation cephalosporins, carbapenems or daptomycin at the time of diagnosis of SBP Isolation of bacteria resistant to third‐generation cephalosporins, carbapenems and/or daptomycin in cultures performed in the previous 7 days Allergy to ceftazidime, meropenem and/or daptomycin
Interventions	Participants were randomly assigned to two groups. Group 1: ceftazidime (n = 16) Further details: ceftazidime 2 g/day to 6 g/day depending on glomerular filtration rate for at least 7 days Group 2: meropenem + daptomycin (n = 15) Further details: meropenem 0.5 g to 3 g/day plus daptomycin 3 mg/Kg/day to 6 mg/Kg/day depending on glomerular filtration rate for at least 7 days
Outcomes	Outcomes reported Mortality Serious adverse events (number of people) Any adverse events (number of people) Liver transplantation Proportion with recovery from SBP Other features of decompensation
Notes	Attempts were made to contact the authors in December 2018; there were no replies. Reason for post‐randomisation dropout: secondary peritonitis
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Randomization was performed using consecutively numbered, computer‐generated, sealed, opaque envelopes containing the treatment assigned."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Randomization was performed using consecutively numbered, computer‐generated, sealed, opaque envelopes containing the treatment assigned."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "Independent laboratory examiners, blinded to assigned treatment, manually assessed the ascitic fluid PMN count". Comment: it is not clear whether patients and healthcare providers were blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "Independent laboratory examiners, blinded to assigned treatment, manually assessed the ascitic fluid PMN count". Comment: it is not clear whether patients and healthcare providers were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: there were post‐randomisation dropouts; it is not clear whether this was related to treatment and/or outcomes.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: a prepublished protocol was not available but the authors report routinely measured clinical outcomes adequately.
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: no other bias was noted.