| 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 1.7.1 Moderate disease (WHO 4 to 5) |
| 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. |
High risk of bias |
More than 30% of participants were missing due to discharge or inconclusive results. There is no analysis to look at the effect of the missing data. |
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. |
High risk of bias |
Due to inappropriate analysis (per protocol analysis) and missing outcome data. |
| Mohan 2021 |
Low risk of bias |
Centralized telephone‐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 not aware of the intervention received and the analysis was appropriate. |
Low risk of bias |
Reasons for missing outcome data were described and appropriate in the context of this outcome (only RT‐PCR positive people at baseline). 11/125 participants were no longer hospitalized at day 7 and missing for analysis. |
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. |
Low risk of bias |
Due to low risk of bias in all domains. |
| Pott‐Junior 2021 |
Low risk of bias |
Random sequence was generated by a computer‐based programme. Allocation assignment was concealed from investigators and patients using sequentially‐numbered sealed opaque envelopes. There was no baseline imbalance that would suggest a problem with randomization. |
High risk of bias |
Both participants and those delivering the intervention were aware of intervention received. 1/4 participants in the control group was excluded due to protocol violation (per protocol analysis). Protocol violation was not described. The analysis was not appropriate and due to the small number of participants in the control group (n = 4) the excluded participant may have changed the result. |
Low risk of bias |
Most people were followed up > 90%. Two patients were missing (one dropout and one protocol violation). |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were aware of the intervention received. Knowledge of intervention received could not have affected outcome measurement. |
Some concerns |
The protocol was prospectively registered. The outcome was not measured as registered. The change may have been due to varying recommendations of PCR testing during the pandemic. |
High risk of bias |
Due to inappropriate analysis (per protocol analysis). |
