5. ROBINS‐I assessments: anticoagulants (all types) versus no treatment for people hospitalised with COVID‐19 (major bleeding).

Study	Bias due to confounding	Bias in selection of participants into the study	Bias in classification of interventions	Bias due to deviations from the intended intervention	Bias due to missing data	Bias in measurement of outcomes	Bias in selection of the reported result	Overall risk of bias
Paranjpe 2020	Serious risk	Serious risk	Serious risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Serious risk
Judgement	To minimise the impact of the absence of randomisation, we performed an adjusted analysis with propensity scores considering confounding demographic and clinical factors, and medication use. However, the study did not consider confounding factors 'participants who underwent surgery during the hospitalisation', 'active cancer treatment', 'concomitant antiplatelet use' and 'history of venous thromboembolism'.	The included participants in both groups were selected from the same hospital, and selection may have been related to intervention and outcome. For this outcome, the authors did not use appropriate methods to adjust for selection bias.	There is a high risk that the interventions received by participants in the same group were not standardised. There is a high risk of differential classification errors because the information on the status of the interventions was obtained retrospectively.	No deviations from the intended intervention were reported in the study, and if any deviation occurred from usual practice, it was unlikely to impact on the outcome.	No missing data were reported for this outcome.	It is unlikely that the outcome assessment (major bleeding) was influenced by the knowledge of the intervention received by the study participants.	The study protocol was not identified but all reported results corresponded to the intended outcome.	The study has some important problems