Country	Study ID	Study design	Random sequence generation (low = random, high = not random, unclear if not specified)	Allocation concealment	Baseline outcome measurement similar	Baseline characteristics similar	Incomplete outcome data
Argentina	Gertler 2014	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences	Low except high for neonatal mortality (noted imbalance only for this outcome).	Low: paper mentioned missingness of 3%, similar across groups. Complete‐case analyses were conducted, which may compromise results but no reporting of missingness by outcome.
Burkina Faso	Steenland 2017	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	High – Table 1 suggested differences between comparison and intervention existed, e.g. number of health facilities/100,000 people consistently higher in intervention than in comparator group.	Low – see Appendix Table 4 of Steenland 2017.
Burundi	Bonfrer 2014a	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	High – appendix Table 6 of Bonfrer 2014a suggests differences existed between the different districts, e.g. population characteristics (poverty) varied between 28.7% and 82.3%.	Unclear: not specified.
	Bonfrer 2014b	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable.	Unclear: not specified.
	Falisse 2015	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	High – data not presented.	Low – authors noted outcomes to focus on chosen based on completeness and sensitivity analyses conducted.
	Rudasingwa 2014	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	High – data not presented.	Low – authors noted outcomes to focus on chosen based on completeness.
Cambodia	Van de Poel 2016	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable.	Unclear: not specified.
Cameroon	Zang 2015	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable.	Unclear: not specified.
China	Yao 2008	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Paper reanalyzed; reanalyzed results noted as low (analysis methods adjusted for differences).	High – Table 1 of Yao 2008 suggests the intervention was performed in areas that were more populated and poorer compared to control.	Unclear: not specified.
Democratic Republic of the Congo	Zeng 2018	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	High – Table 3 of Zeng 2018 suggests significant differences, e.g. in household size, daily spending and age of mother.	Unclear: not specified.
	Soeters 2011	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	High – not specified.	Unclear: not specified.
El Salvador	Bernal 2018	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	High – Table 2 and page 9 of Bernal 2018 highlight the differences between results‐based aid provinces and those with national funding.	Unclear: not specified.
Haiti	Zeng 2013	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	High – data not presented.	Unclear: not specified.
Multiple – Burkina Faso, Ghana and Tanzania	Duysburgh 2016	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Paper reanalyzed; reanalyzed results noted as low (analysis methods adjusted for differences).	High – appendix Table S1 of Duysburgh 2016 suggested differences between intervention and control sites but unclear what effect this would have on outcomes.	Unclear: not specified.
Tanzania	Binyaruka 2015	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low except for: ANC visits and IPT during ANC, outpatient visits per month < or > 5, patient assessments of staff kindness, probability of payment for delivery care, satisfaction with interpersonal care.	High: authors noted this may have biased results.
	Binyaruka 2017	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low except for: availability and stockouts of medicines and medical supplies	Unclear: not specified.
	Binyaruka 2018b	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low except for: ANC visits and IPT during ANC, outpatient visits per month < or > 5, patient assessments of staff kindness, probability of payment for delivery care, satisfaction with interpersonal care.	High: authors noted that this may have biased results.
	Mayumana 2017	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low except for: medical supply stockouts, disruptions due to broken equipment, governance outcomes (committee meetings, content of supervision, existence of community health fund).	High: authors noted that this may have biased results.
Zimbabwe	Das 2017	CBA	High – as per guidance.	High – as per guidance.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable.	High: subset analyses with particularly small samples.
Benin	Lagarde 2015	Quasi/non‐randomized trial	Unclear: not specified.	Unclear: not specified.	High – analyses methods did not adjust for baseline differences in outcomes, but do adjusted for facility and health worker differences.	High – appendix Table 6 of Lagarde 2015 suggested differences exist between the different districts, e.g. population characteristics (poverty) varied between 28.7% and 82.3%.	Unclear: not specified.
Cameroon	de Walque 2017	Quasi/non‐randomized trial	Low – sequence described in sufficient detail.	Low – assignment by province/district/cluster.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable.	Unclear: not specified.
China	Powell‐Jackson 2014	Quasi/non‐randomized trial	High – no randomization, though matching occurred.	Low – assignment by province/district/cluster.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable.	Unclear: not specified.
	Sun 2016	Quasi/non‐randomized trial	High – randomization compromised.	Low – assignment by province/district/cluster.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable.	Unclear: not specified.
Peru	Cruzado de la Vega 2017	Quasi/non‐randomized trial	High – no randomization.	Low – assignment by province/district/cluster.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable.	Unclear: not specified.
Rwanda	Basinga 2011	Quasi/non‐randomized trial	High – randomization compromised.	Low – assignment by province/district/cluster.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable.	Unclear: not specified.
	Lannes 2016	Quasi/non‐randomized trial	High – randomization compromised.	Low – assignment by province/district/cluster.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable.	Unclear: not specified.
	Priedeman Skiles 2013	Quasi/non‐randomized trial	High – randomization compromised.	Low – assignment by province/district/cluster.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable.	Unclear: not specified.
	Priedeman Skiles 2015	Quasi/non‐randomized trial	High – randomization compromised.	Low – assignment by province/district/cluster.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable.	Unclear: not specified.
	Sherry 2017	Quasi/non‐randomized trial	High – randomization compromised.	Low – assignment by province/district/cluster.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable.	Unclear: not specified.
	Lannes 2015	Quasi/non‐randomized trial	High – randomization compromised.	Low – assignment by province/district/cluster.	Unclear: not specified.	High – not specified.	Unclear: not specified, using data from Basinga 2011.
	Gertler 2013	Quasi/non‐randomized trial	High – randomization compromised.	Low – assignment by province/district/cluster.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable.	Low – authors noted similar levels of attrition.
	de Walque 2015	Quasi/non‐randomized trial	High – randomization compromised.	Low – assignment by province/district/cluster.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable.	Unclear: not specified.
Swaziland	Kliner 2015	Quasi/non‐randomized trial	High – no randomization.	High – allocation was pragmatic.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	High – Table 2 of Kliner 2015 suggested differences in populations and outcomes exist.	Unclear: not specified.
Tanzania	Brock 2018	Quasi/non‐randomized trial	Low – sequence described in sufficient detail.	Low – assignment by healthcare professional, done after baseline assessment.	Low – comparable.	High – Tables 2 and 3 of Brock 2018 suggested some differences between providers and patients.	Low – dropout before assignment 12%, but after only 3%.
Zimbabwe	Friedman 2016b	Quasi/Non‐randomized trial	High – no randomization, though stratification and matching.	High – allocation was done by Ministry if Health via matching.	Low – analysis methods adjusted for differences.	Low – comparable. (Appendix 3 of Friedman 2016b tested parallel trends, though baseline characteristics were dissimilar at times).	Unclear: not specified (authors noted that for household expenditure data there was high missingness).
ANC: antenatal care; CBA: controlled before‐after; IPT: intermittent preventive treatment.