Baker 2016 IND.
| Methods | Case‐control study (prospective, age‐stratified, matched) | |
| Participants | Case and control definitions were the same as Baker 2016 BGD. Cases n = 1505 (4% LTFU), controls n = 1967 (2.3% LTFU). | |
| Interventions | Same as Baker 2016 BGD | |
| Outcomes | Same as Baker 2016 BGD | |
| Notes | Location: 2 urban sentinel HCs, Kolkata, West Bengal, India Length: 3 years (1 December 2007 to 3 March 2011) Publication status: journal |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | NA |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | NA |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | NA |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | NA |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | NA |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | NA |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | NA |
| Similarity of baseline outcome measurements | Unclear risk | NA |
| Similarity of baseline characteristics | Unclear risk | NA |
| Adequate allocation of intervention concealment during the study | Unclear risk | NA |
| Adequate protection against contamination | Unclear risk | NA |
| Confounders adequately adjusted for in analysis/design | Unclear risk | NA |
| Recruitment bias | Unclear risk | NA |
| Baseline imbalance | Unclear risk | NA |
| Loss of clusters | Unclear risk | NA |
| Incorrect analysis | Unclear risk | NA |