| 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 |
| Subgroup 1.1.1 Moderate disease (WHO 4 to 5) |
| Gonzalez 2021 |
Some concerns |
Computer‐generated randomization. There was no information on allocation concealment. Baseline details differed between groups. Due to small group sizes and stratification according to QT prolongation the deviations may be caused by chance. |
Some concerns |
Participants were not aware of the intervention received. No information on those delivering the intervention. No information reported whether there were deviations from the intended interventions or not. 2/108 participants were excluded from analysis due to transfer to another hospital (mITT). |
Low risk of bias |
Most people were followed up > 95%. 2/108 participants were excluded from analysis due to transfer to another hospital. |
Low risk of bias |
There was insufficient information on whether the outcome assessors were aware of the intervention received. But knowledge of intervention received could not have affected outcome measurement. |
Some concerns |
The protocol was prospectively registered and the outcome was registered. The time point of outcome measurement was not defined. |
Some concerns |
Due to insufficient information on allocation concealment and blinding of healthcare providers. Due to lack of defining the time point of outcome measurement in the protocol. |
| Kirti 2021 |
Low risk of bias |
Randomization was performed by an independent person not part of the investigating team using a computer‐based program. There was no baseline imbalance that would suggest a problem with randomization. |
Some concerns |
Both participants and those delivering the intervention were not aware of intervention received. 1/57 participants in the intervention group and 1/58 participants in the control group received ivermectin by the treating team. Both participants were excluded (per protocol analysis). The analysis was not appropriate, but it is unlikely to have an impact on the result. |
Low risk of bias |
Most people were followed up >95%. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were not aware of the intervention received. Knowledge of intervention received could not have affected outcome measurement. |
Low risk of bias |
The protocol was prospectively registered and the outcome in the journal publication was reported as registered. |
Some concerns |
Due to inappropriate analysis (per protocol analysis). |
| Krolewiecki 2021 |
Low risk of bias |
Centralized web‐based randomization. There are no baseline differences that would suggest a problem with randomization. |
Low risk of bias |
Both participants and those delivering the intervention were aware of intervention received. The reason for withdrawals and changing treatments/ withdrawal are consistent with routine care. The analysis was appropriate (ITT). |
Low risk of bias |
Data for this outcome were available for all randomized participants. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were aware of the intervention received. Knowledge of intervention received could not have affected outcome measurement. |
Low risk of bias |
The protocol was prospectively registered and the outcome in the journal publication was reported as registered as part of the AE outcome. |
Low risk of bias |
Due to low risk of bias in all domains. |
