| Methods |
Randomised, parallel, comparison of rimantadine with PB. Multicentre trial that took place during an influenza season for 3 to 4 weeks after the start of treatment
Patients were blinded. Outcome assessor blinding was unclear
Dropouts: none (in the subgroup of interest)
Co‐interventions and other potential confounders were not observed |
| Participants |
There was a total of 84 participants, including 46 children, which was our subgroup of interest
Inclusion criteria: children within families consisting of 2 to 5 members with at least 1 adult (ranging in age from 18 to 75 years and 1 child aged between 1 to 17 years during a naturally occurring outbreak of influenza A
Exclusion criteria: participants who had a history of amantadine hypersensitivity, chronic respiratory disease, severe medical illness, neuropsychiatric disorder; were pregnant or lactating; had a recently documented influenza A virus infection; required long‐term drug therapy with amantadine or drugs that could interfere with rimantadine or with clinical assessments (e.g. aspirin, tranquillisers, antihistamines and decongestants
Gender: unclear
Disease stage: all the eligible participants were given the assigned drug as soon as influenza was first recognised in family members (the index patient) and after the member had been evaluated by a study nurse |
| Interventions |
Rimantadine: 5 mg/kg/d, max: 150 mg/d (= or < 10 years or weighing less than 30 kg) or 200 mg/d (> 9 years who weighed more than 30 kg). Oral route. Duration: 10 days |
| Outcomes |
The outcome of interest was laboratory‐proven infection cases |
| Notes |
1 to 17 years old |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Authors stated it was a randomised study and that randomisation is described in another article (Hayden 1989): "all eligible family members ... randomly assigned as a block to receive either rimantadine or PB". The method used is not described |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Randomisation was carried out in one of the centres where this multicentric trial was conducted |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Reasons for missing outcome data are unlikely to be related to true outcome |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Authors stated it was a double‐blinded trial as described in the other article (Hayden 1989): "the study was double‐blind ... trial". Nevertheless, the specific people who were blinded are not listed |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
Authors stated it was a double‐blinded trial as described in the other article (Hayden 1989): "the study was double‐blind ... trial". Nevertheless, the specific people who were blinded are not listed |
