| 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 |
| Clemency 2021 |
Low risk of bias |
We judged this domain low as the randomisation process was adequate because it is done remotely and moreover consider concealment adequate. Slight baseline differences were most likely due to chance. |
Low risk of bias |
Deviations were balanced and most likely not due to the trial context in this double‐blinded trial. |
Low risk of bias |
Although there were around 5% of participants lost to follow‐up, it seems not probable that the outcome has been affected relevantly by those dropouts. |
Low risk of bias |
We judged low risk of bias, scheduled contact at day 30. |
Low risk of bias |
We judged this domain low due to pre‐specification of the outcome. |
Low risk of bias |
Overall, we judged low risk of bias. |
| Ramakrishnan 2021 |
Low risk of bias |
Stratified block randomisation, sequence held in secure network location at Oxford University, characteristics incl. SARS‐CoV‐2 status are well balanced. |
Low risk of bias |
We judged this domain low due to only a low number of participants withdrew consent. |
Low risk of bias |
We judged this domain low due to a small number of missing data. In the intervention group about 1% and in the control group about 4% of the participants withdrew consent due to the allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
We judged this domain low because the measurements were similar between groups. |
Some concerns |
We judged some concerns because the outcome was not pre‐specified. |
Some concerns |
Overall we judged some concerns due to missing pre‐specification of the outcome. |
| Yu 2021 |
Low risk of bias |
Participants were randomised via web‐based Sortition and the allocation sequence was intimated to GP and patient via email/letter. There are no baseline differences that would suggest a problem with randomisation |
Low risk of bias |
We judged risk of bias low because there were no reported deviations from intended interventions. |
Low risk of bias |
We judged this domain low because it is not likely that missingness in the outcome depended on its true value. There were about 5% of the participants without a diary entry. |
Low risk of bias |
We judged this domain low because the measurements were similar between groups. |
Low risk of bias |
The data were in accordance with the protocol, so that we assessed this domain low. |
Low risk of bias |
Overall judged low risk of bias. |
