Skip to main content
. 2023 Jan 25;2023(1):CD014962. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014962.pub2

Risk of bias for analysis 5.1 All‐cause mortality at up to day 28.

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 5.1.1 5‐day remdesivir
Spinner 2020 Low risk of bias Block‐randomisation was not stratified and web‐based. Sites did not have access to the randomisation list. There were no baseline imbalances that would suggest a problem with randomisation. Low risk of bias Participants and care takers were aware of the assigned intervention. There was a neglectable number of participants with deviations from the intended intervention and the analysis was appropriate (intention‐to‐treat population). Low risk of bias Data was available for nearly all participants (<5% missing) randomised. Low risk of bias Outcome assessors were aware of the treatment assignments. Knowledge of intervention received could not have affected the outcome measurement. Low risk of bias The trial protocol provided details of time points and analysis. Mortality was analysed in accordance with a prespecified analysis plan. Low risk of bias Overall judged low. Details about randomisation, blinding of outcome assessors and a protocol were provided. It was an open‐label study, but this could not have affected the outcome measurement.
Subgroup 5.1.2 10‐day remdesivir
Spinner 2020 Low risk of bias Block‐randomisation was not stratified and web‐based. Sites did not have access to the randomisation list. There were no baseline imbalances that would suggest a problem with randomisation. Low risk of bias Participants and care takers were aware of the assigned intervention. There was a neglectable number of participants with deviations from the intended intervention and the analysis was appropriate (intention‐to‐treat population). Low risk of bias Data was available for nearly all participants (<5% missing) randomised. Low risk of bias Outcome assessors were aware of the treatment assignments. Knowledge of intervention received could not have affected the outcome measurement. Low risk of bias The trial protocol provided details of time points and analysis. Mortality was analysed in accordance with a prespecified analysis plan. Low risk of bias Overall judged low. Details about randomisation, blinding of outcome assessors and a protocol were provided. It was an open‐label study, but this could not have affected the outcome measurement.