Table 3.

The quality of evidence of the randomized controlled trial and cohort studies included for meta-analysis

Outcome	Quality assessment							Number of patients		Relative effect (95% CI)	Quality
	Number of studies	Study design	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Other considerations	Thiamine (%)	Non-thiamine (%)
Mortality	3	RCT	Not seriousa	Not seriousb	Not seriousc	Seriousd	Nonee	45/106 (42.5)	52/117 (44.4)	RR 0.96 (0.72-1.28)	⊕⊕⊕◯Moderate
	2	Cohort	Seriousf	Seriousg	Serioush	Seriousd	Nonee	78/157 (49.7)	153/265 (57.7)	RR 0.74 (0.47-1.19)	⊕◯◯◯Very low

^aTrials were low risk of bias, ^bInconsistency explained by I² value as 0%; low heterogeneity; not serious, ^cThe intervention, population, and outcome measured were similar in included studies, ^dThe confidence interval includes possible benefit from intervention and comparator approaches, ^eNone: Publication bias is not likely; no large effect and dose response gradient; no plausible confounding, ^fThe include trials were moderate risk of bias, gInconsistency explained by I² value as 74%; moderate heterogeneity; serious, ^hThe interventions were delivered in different dose and the dosage form of thiamine varied among these studies. RCT: Randomized control trial, CI: Confidence interval, RR: Risk ratio