Anand 2015.

Methods	Study design: open‐label, randomised trial Setting: Mirpur, an urban neighbourhood in Dhaka, Bangladesh Study dates: 2012 to 2013
Participants	Sample size: 975 infants recruited from 27 November 2012 to 30 November 2013 Age: median age = 44 days Sex: male = 462, female = 513 Dropouts/withdrawals: not reported Inclusion criteria: not reported Exclusion criteria: "(1) receipt of any polio vaccine before enrolment; (2) diagnosis or suspicion of immunodeficiency or a bleeding disorder; (3) known allergy to polio vaccines or constituents; (4) any acute illness such as vomiting, diarrhoea or infection immediately before enrolment; and (5) an infant who was part of a multiple birth" (quote)
Interventions	Group A (n = 203): OOO (tOPV) at 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 months Group B (n = 200): OOO (bOPV) at 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 months Group C (n = 156): II (IPV intramuscular) at 1.5 and 3.5 months Group D (n = 152): II (f‐IPV intradermal) at 1.5 and 3.5 months Group E (n = 211): IOI (f‐IPV intradermal, bOPV, f‐IPV intradermal) at 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 months, respectively
Outcomes	Immunogenicity: seroconversion at 18 weeks of age compared to 6 weeks of age of antibodies to poliovirus types 1, 2 and 3 at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, USA, using microneutralisation assay. Titres below a dilution of 1:8 were considered negative for presence of poliovirus antibodies. Seroconversion is defined as either seronegative participants (< 1:8 titres) who become seropositive (≥ 1:8) or participants who demonstrate a 4‐fold change in titres between two specimens (e.g. a change from 1:8 to 1:32) Timing of outcome assessment: 6, 14, and 18 weeks
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: randomisation mentioned but not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: randomisation mentioned but not described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: no blinding but performance is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding in terms of intervention or co‐interventions
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: no blinding but objective outcome (antibody titres) is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding; adverse events may be influenced
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: 5.4% lost to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: reported outcomes are the same as those reported in the trial register (NCT01813604)
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: study seems to be free of other bias
Conflict of interest	Low risk	Comment: funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All study authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.