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

Risk of bias for analysis 9.3 Clinical improvement: discharged alive.

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
Taboada 2021 Some concerns There are no further information regarding the concealment of the allocation sequence Low risk of bias Both participants and those delivering the intervention were aware of intervention received, but there was no information on deviations from intended intervention. The analysis was appropriate. Low risk of bias Data for this outcome was available for all 200 participants randomised. Low risk of bias The measurement of the outcome was appropriate and it is unlikely that it differed between intervention groups. The outcome assessors were aware of the intervention received, but it is unlikely that knowledge of intervention received could have affected outcome measurement Low risk of bias Protocol available. Outcome pre‐specified. Some concerns For this outcome, there is low risk of bias due to deviations from intended interventions, due to missing outcome data and in measurement of the outcome. However, there are some concerns for bias in selection of the reported result and the randomisation process.