Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 17;2022(11):CD014963. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014963.pub2

Risk of bias for analysis 1.8 Invasive fungal infections.

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
Corral‐Gudino 2021 Some concerns We judged the domain some concerns due to missing information about the allocation concealment. Low risk of bias Participants and clinicians were aware of the assigned treatment. The intention‐to‐treat‐analysis was used to estimate the effect of the assignment to intervention. All this leads us to the following judgement for domain 2: Low. High risk of bias Because of the issue of competing risk of death all data for this outcome might not be available. There was no adjustment in the analysis for competing risk of death. Low risk of bias No issues with measurement. Some concerns We judged some concerns as the outcome was not pre‐specified but requested from the authors. High risk of bias Overall we judged risk of bias to be high mainly because of missing adjustment for competing risk of death in domain 3.