Risk of bias for analysis 4.6 Multiple pregnancy rate per couple: TLS (with algorithm) cleavage stage versus conventional blastocyst stage.

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

Yang 2018

Low risk of bias

Allocation sequence was random and concealed

Some concerns

Participants, carers and people delivering the intervention were probably aware of their assigned intervention. No information about a deviation from the intended protocols. And no information about the number of randomised women per arm and it is not possible to know how the analysis was performed.

Low risk of bias

The observed number of events is much greater than the number of participants with missing outcome data, but it is probably not related with the true value

Low risk of bias

Method of measuring the outcome was appropriate, it was not different between groups and it is an objective outcome that is unlikely to be influenced by the knowledge of the assigned intervention.

Low risk of bias

Quote" ChiCTR‐ICR‐15006600"

Some concerns

There are some concerns of risk of bias due to deviations from the intended interventions.