| 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 1.13.1 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. Knowledge of intervention received could not have affected 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. |
| Mohan 2021 |
Low risk of bias |
Centralized telephone‐based randomization. There are no baseline differences that would suggest a problem with randomisation. |
Low risk of bias |
Both participants and those delivering the intervention were not aware of the intervention received and the analysis was appropriate. |
Low risk of bias |
Reasons for missing outcome data were described and appropriate in the context of this outcome (only RT‐PCR positive people at baseline). 11/125 participants were no longer hospitalized at day 7 and missing for analysis. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were not aware of the intervention received. Knowledge of intervention received could not have affected outcome measurement. |
Low risk of bias |
The protocol was prospectively registered and the outcome in the journal publication was reported as registered. |
Low risk of bias |
Due to low risk of bias in all domains. |
