Skip to main content
. 2021 Sep 2;2021(9):CD013825. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013825.pub2

Risk of bias for analysis 2.5 Viral clearance at day 15.

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
BLAZE‐1 (phase 3) Low risk of bias Participants were randomised via mass‐weighted urn randomisation. There are baseline differences, but they are unlikely to suggest a problem with randomisation. Low risk of bias Both participants and those delivering the intervention were unaware of the assigned intervention received and an appropriate analysis was performed. Low risk of bias Data for this outcome was available for nearly all participants (968 out of 1035 participants randomised). Low risk of bias The measurement of the outcome was appropriate and it is unlikely that it differed between intervention groups. The outcome assessors were unaware of the intervention received. Low risk of bias We used data from Kaplan‐Meier curve to calculate cumulative frequency of viral clearance. Low risk of bias For this outcome, there is a low risk of bias for all the domains.