Tiller 1981.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: parallel, open‐label RCT Study duration: May 1974 to November 1980 Duration of follow‐up: 36 months
Participants	Setting: multicentre Country: Australia Inclusion criteria: biopsy‐proven IMN Baseline characteristics Pathology stage: not reported SCr: patients with SCr < 350 μmol/L GFR: patients with GFR ≥ 0.33 mL/sec/1.73 m² (20 mL/min/1.73 m²) Baseline declining kidney function: no Use of ACEi or ARB during follow‐up: not reported Previous immunosuppressive status: previous treatment did not preclude patients from the study, provided that they had been on no "specific" treatment for a period of 6 months before entering the study Number: treatment group (27); control group (27) Mean age ± SD (years): not reported Sex (M/F): not reported Exclusion criteria: not reported
Interventions	Treatment group CPA: 1.5 mg/kg/day for 6 mouths Dipyridamole and sodium warfarin therapy were prescribed Symptomatic treatment Control group Symptomatic treatment
Outcomes	Death ESKD Side effects leading to patient withdrawal or hospitalisation
Notes	Funding source: supported by a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia The full text was published at a conference
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information about the sequence generation process to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No sufficient detail about concealment of the random allocation sequence before or during enrolment of participants
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	open‐label study
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	29/54 patients (54%) completed the 36‐month follow‐up: 14/27 (52%) in the treatment group and 15/27 (56%) in the control group. The missing numbers of patients were balanced and the missing reason was specified in each patient. The rate of loss to follow‐up was high (54%), intention‐to‐treat principle was used to deal with these data to avoid potential bias
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The primary outcomes and key adverse effects were detailed in the publication, although other outcomes were not available to be included in this meta‐analysis
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement