Kobbe 2007 GHA.

Study characteristics
Methods	Trial design: RCT Trial dates: January 2003 to September 2005 Length of follow‐up: 24 months of age
Participants	Number of participants: 1070 infants (535 infants in each arm) Inclusion criteria: age 3 months (4 weeks tolerance accepted); permanent residence in study area Exclusion criteria: severe illness
Interventions	Intervention: SP (250 mg sulfadoxine and 12.5 mg pyrimethamine) given at 3, 9, and 15 months of age: One tablet at 3, 9, and 15 months of age Placebo: identical placebos given at the same time points with iPTi All participants concurrently received routine immunization with diphtheria‐pertussis‐tetanus (DPT) and measles vaccines
Outcomes	Outcomes included in the review Clinical malaria Anaemia Hospital admissions All‐cause mortality Adverse events Outcomes not included in the review: none
Notes	Location: Afigya Sekyere district, Ghana Malaria transmission: holoendemic, intense perennial (with seasonal peaks), EIR = 400 infective bites/person/year Funding: the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (grant 01KA0202) The German Academic Exchange Service La Roche (Basel, Switzerland) manufactured study drugs free of charge Sanofi‐Aventis donated artesunate tablets for treatment of uncomplicated malaria episodes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	The trial used computer‐generated random numbers
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	The trial used identical and centrally coded drugs and placebo
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"A study team of 2 doctors, a nurse, a technician, and a field worker, all blinded to group assignment, was responsible for recruitment, treatment, and subsequent visits"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"A study team of 2 doctors, a nurse, a technician, and a field worker, all blinded to group assignment, was responsible for recruitment, treatment, and subsequent visits"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Percentage loss of 18.5% (per protocol)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The trial reported most of the expected outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	The trial appeared to be free of other sources of bias