Comparison 2. Pyronaridine‐artesunate versus artesunate‐amodiaquine.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
2.1 Total failure: day 28 (PCR‐adjusted)	6	1245	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.55 [0.11, 2.77]
2.2 Total failure: day 42 (PCR‐adjusted)	6	1091	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.20, 4.83]
2.3 Total failure: day 28 (unadjusted)	6	1257	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.49 [0.30, 0.81]
2.4 Total failure: day 42 (unadjusted)	6	1235	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.78, 1.23]
2.5 First treatment, ALT increase > 5 × ULN	6	1317	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.41 [0.28, 7.09]
2.6 First treatment, AST increase > 5 × ULN	6	1317	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.40 [0.08, 2.07]
2.7 First treatment, bilirubin increase > 2.5 × ULN	6	1317	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.99 [0.06, 15.76]
2.8 Subsequent treatment(s), ALT increase > 5 × ULN	6	784	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.93 [0.48, 7.76]
2.9 Subsequent treatment(s), AST increase > 5 × ULN	6	784	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.80 [0.49, 6.62]
2.10 Subsequent treatment(s), bilirubin increase > 2.5 × ULN	6	784	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.80 [0.33, 9.83]