Skip to main content
. 2021 Jul 28;2021(7):CD015017. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2

Risk of bias for analysis 1.10 Duration of hospitalization (primary analysis).

Study Bias
Randomisation process Deviations from intended interventions Missing outcome data Measurement of the outcome Selection of the reported results Overall
Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Subgroup 1.10.1 Moderate disease (WHO 4 to 5)
Ahmed 2020 Some concerns There was no information on randomisation or allocation concealment. Baseline details were not reported. The summary statement on baseline details suggests that there are no baseline differences that would suggest a problem with randomisation. Some concerns There was insufficient information on blinding provided. No information reported whether there were deviations from the intended interventions or not. The analysis was appropriate. Low risk of bias Most people were followed up >90% and reasons for missing outcome data were described. Low risk of bias There was insufficient information on whether the outcome assessors were aware of the intervention received. By following a clinical protocol, knowledge of the intervention received could only minimally affect the outcome measurement. Some concerns There was no trial register entry and no published protocol. Some concerns Due to insufficient information on randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and health care providers, and lack of a prospectively registered protocol.