9. ROBINS‐I assessments: anticoagulants (therapeutic dose) versus anticoagulants (prophylactic dose) for people hospitalised with COVID‐19 (hospitalisation).

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
Trinh 2020	Serious risk	Moderate risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Low risk	Serious risk	Serious risk
Judgement	To minimise the impact of the absence of randomisation, we performed an analysis with propensity scores considering confounding demographic, clinical and laboratory factors, and medication use. However, the study did not consider confounding factors 'participants who underwent a surgery during the hospitalisation', 'concomitant antiplatelet use' and 'history of venous thromboembolism'.	The included participants in both groups were selected from the same hospital. The study authors considered for inclusion all patients who met the inclusion criteria and who were treated in each period.	Intervention status was well defined based on information collected at the time of intervention.	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 (length of hospital stay) was influenced by the knowledge of the intervention received by the study participants.	The study protocol was not identified or was not available or both (only a preprint was available), and it is not possible to exclude bias.	The study has some important problems