| 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 1.5.1 With respiratory muscle weakness |
| Charususin 2018 |
Low risk of bias |
The allocation sequence was random, concealed, and baseline characteristics were similar. |
Low risk of bias |
ITT analysis was conducted. |
Low risk of bias |
There is evidence that missingness did not bias the results. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded. |
Low risk of bias |
A trial protocol is available with no differences with the journal article. |
Low risk of bias |
No detected issues with the five domains. |
| Dellweg 2017 |
Low risk of bias |
The sequence was random, concealed, and baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. |
Low risk of bias |
ITT analysis was conducted. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded. |
Low risk of bias |
A trial register is available, and no differences between the methods and the results sections. |
Low risk of bias |
No detected issues with the five domains. |
| Tout 2013 |
High risk of bias |
No details about randomisation in the trial (we only discovered that it was a RCT in a personal communication). |
Low risk of bias |
No deviations were reported and all participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
All the data are available. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome measurement was appropriate and it is an observer reported outcome that do not involve judgements |
Low risk of bias |
Only the journal article is available, and no differences between the methods and the results sections. |
High risk of bias |
Lack of details about the randomisation process and only the journal article is available. |
| Subgroup 1.5.2 Without respiratory muscle weakness |
| Beaumont 2015 |
Some concerns |
No information about allocation concealment. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
No loss of follow up or exclusion. |
Low risk of bias |
Observer‐reported outcome that do not involve judgements. |
Low risk of bias |
A trial register is available, and both adjustet and unadjusted analysis were reported. |
Some concerns |
Lack of information about the randomisation process. |
| Beaumont 2018 |
Low risk of bias |
Allocation sequence was random, concealed, and baseline characteristics were similar. |
Low risk of bias |
"All analyses were performed on an intention‐to‐treat basis". |
Low risk of bias |
The data from two participants out of 149 were missing. |
Low risk of bias |
"All the data were collected by a research nurse blinded to treatment allocation". |
Low risk of bias |
A trial register is available and there is only one way to measure the outcome. |
Low risk of bias |
No detected issues with the five domains. |
| De Farias 2019 |
Some concerns |
The allocation sequence was random, lack of details about allocation concealment, and no baseline differences. |
Some concerns |
2 participants out of 33 were not analysed |
Low risk of bias |
The data of 2 participants out of 33 are missing (6%) |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded |
Some concerns |
Only the abstract and the trial protocol are available |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, reason for missingness, and only the abstract et the protocol are available. |
| De Farias 2019 |
Some concerns |
The allocation sequence was random, lack of details about allocation concealment, and no baseline differences. |
Some concerns |
2 participants out of 33 were not analysed |
Low risk of bias |
The data of 2 participants out of 33 are missing (6%) |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded |
Some concerns |
Only the abstract and the trial protocol are available |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, reason for missingness, and only the abstract et the protocol are available. |
| Mador 2005 |
Some concerns |
Randomisation was reported only as a sentence. |
Some concerns |
The reasons for exclusion were not reported, and it is unlikely that a per‐protocol analysis was conducted. |
Some concerns |
The data of 9 participants out of 38 were missing, and the proportion of missingness was balanced between the two groups. |
Low risk of bias |
Observer‐reported outcome that do not involve judgements |
Some concerns |
Only the journal is available, and no adjusted analysis were conducted. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about the randomisation process, reasons for exclusion and/or loss of follow up were not explained, and only the journal article is available. |
| Magadle 2007 |
Some concerns |
No information about allocation concealment. |
Low risk of bias |
All participants were analysed according to their initial allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
the data of 2 participants out of 31 were missing (6%). |
Low risk of bias |
Observer reported outcome that do not involve judgement. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available, and there is only one way to measure the outcome. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about allocation concealement and only the trial register is available. |
| Paneroni 2018 |
Low risk of bias |
Allocation sequence was concealed. |
Low risk of bias |
No participants were excluded. |
High risk of bias |
11% of the participants discontinued the intervention. The reasons were: intolerance to the intervention and low compliance. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blinded. |
Low risk of bias |
A trial register is available, with no differences with the journal article. No adusted analysis were conducted. |
High risk of bias |
Missingness is likely to be dependant on its true value. |
| Schultz 2018 |
Some concerns |
No information about allocation concealment. |
Low risk of bias |
ITT analysis was conducted. |
Low risk of bias |
Missingness was balanced between the groups. |
Low risk of bias |
The outcome was adequately measured, and it is an observer reported outcome that do not involve judgements. |
Low risk of bias |
No differences between the trial register, the abstracts, the methods and the results sections. |
Some concerns |
Lack of details about allocation concealment, and no issues with the other domains. |
| Tounsi 2021 |
Low risk of bias |
The allocation sequence was random, concealed, and baseline characteristics were similar. |
Low risk of bias |
ITT analysis was conducted. |
Low risk of bias |
Missingness was independent on its true value. |
Low risk of bias |
The outcome was measured according to the guidelines and it is an observer‐reported outcome that does not involve judgement. |
Low risk of bias |
No differences between the journal article and the trial register. |
Low risk of bias |
No detected issues with the five domains. |
| Wang 2017 |
Low risk of bias |
The allocation sequence was random, concealed, and baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. |
Low risk of bias |
ITT analysis was conducted. |
Low risk of bias |
Taking account that only 7% of the data are missing, we considered LOCF imputation a valid method for this kind on intervention. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome measurement was appropriate and outcome assessors were blinded. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available, both adjusted and unadjusted analysis were reported. |
Some concerns |
Only the journal article is available. |
