Skip to main content
. 2021 Nov 16;2021(11):CD013757. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013757.pub2

Risk of bias for analysis 1.3 Adverse events.

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
Feltes 2003 Low risk of bias Randomisation and allocation were done centrally and there are no concerns regarding baseline differences.  Low risk of bias Participants and those involved in caring for participants were not aware of the assigned intervention. There are no concerns regarding the analysis used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.   Low risk of bias Data were available for nearly all randomised participants.  Low risk of bias Method for outcome measurement was appropriate and equally applied between groups. Outcome assessors were blinded to intervention status.  Low risk of bias No pre‐specified analysis plan available, but the outcome is usually measured and analysed in the way presented in the trial.  Low risk of bias The study is judged to be at low risk of bias for all domains for this result. 
IMpact‐RSV Study Group 1998 Low risk of bias Randomisation and allocation were done centrally and there are no concerns regarding baseline differences Low risk of bias Participants and those involved in caring for participants were not aware of the assigned intervention. There are no concerns regarding the analysis used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.   Low risk of bias Data were available for nearly all randomised participants.  Low risk of bias Method for outcome measurement was appropriate and equally applied between groups. Outcome assessors were blinded to intervention status.  Low risk of bias No pre‐specified analysis plan available, but the outcome is usually measured and analysed in the way presented in the trial. Low risk of bias The study is judged to be at low risk of bias for all domains for this result. 
Subramanian 1998 Low risk of bias Randomisation and allocation were done centrally and there are no concerns regarding baseline differences.  Low risk of bias Participants and those involved in caring for participants were not aware of the assigned intervention. There are no concerns regarding the analysis used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.   Low risk of bias Data were available for nearly all randomised participants.  Low risk of bias Method for outcome measurement was appropriate and equally applied between groups. Outcome assessors were blinded to intervention status.  Low risk of bias No pre‐specified analysis plan available, but the outcome is usually measured and analysed in the way presented in the trial.  Low risk of bias The study is judged to be at low risk of bias for all domains for this result.