Yes, low risk of bias

The investigators describe a random component in the sequence generation process such as: referring to a random number table; using a computer random number generator; coin tossing; shuffling cards or envelopes; throwing dice; drawing of lots.

No, high risk of bias

The investigators describe a non‐random component in the sequence generation process. Usually, the description would involve some systematic, non‐random approach, for example: sequence generated by odd or even date of birth; sequence generated by some rule based on date (or day) of admission; sequence generated by some rule based on hospital or clinic record number.

Unclear

Insufficient information about the sequence generation process to permit judgement of either Yes or No (as above) to be made.

Yes, low risk of bias

Participants and investigators enrolling participants could not foresee assignment either because one of the following, or an equivalent method, was used to conceal allocation: central allocation (including telephone, web‐based and pharmacy‐controlled randomisation); sequentially‐numbered drug containers of identical appearance; sequentially‐numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes.

No, high risk of bias

Participants or investigators enrolling participants could possibly foresee assignments and thus introduce selection bias, i.e. when allocation used: an open random allocation schedule (e.g. a list of random numbers); assignment envelopes without appropriate safeguards (e.g. if envelopes were unsealed or non­opaque or not sequentially numbered); alternation or rotation; date of birth; case record number; any other explicitly unconcealed procedure.

Unclear

Insufficient information to permit judgement of either Yes or No to be made. This is usually the case if the method of concealment is not described, or is not described in sufficient detail to allow a definite judgement, for example if the use of assignment envelopes is described, but it remains unclear whether envelopes were sequentially numbered, opaque and sealed.

Yes, low risk of bias

Any one of the following:

• No blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome and the outcome measurement are not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

• Blinding of participants and key trial personnel ensured, and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken.

• Either participants or some key trial personnel were not blinded, but outcome assessment was blinded and the non‐blinding of others unlikely to introduce bias.

No, high risk of bias

Any one of the following:

• No blinding or incomplete blinding, and the outcome or outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

• Blinding of key trial participants and personnel attempted, but likely that the blinding could have been broken.

• Either participants or some key trial personnel were not blinded, and the non‐blinding of others likely to introduce bias.

Unclear

Any one of the following:

• Insufficient information to permit judgement of Yes or No to be made.

• The trial did not address this outcome.

Yes, low risk of bias

Any one of the following:

• No missing outcome data.

• Reasons for missing outcome data unlikely to be related to true outcome (for survival data, censoring unlikely to be introducing bias).

• Missing outcome data balanced in numbers across intervention groups, with similar reasons for missing data across groups.

• For dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on the intervention effect estimate.

• For continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or standardised difference in means) among missing outcomes not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on observed effect size.

• Missing data have been imputed using appropriate methods.

No, high risk of bias

Any one of the following:

• Reason for missing outcome data likely to be related to true outcome, with either imbalance in numbers or reasons for missing data across intervention groups.

• For dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk enough to induce clinically relevant bias in intervention effect estimate.

• For continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or standardised difference in means) among missing outcomes enough to induce clinically relevant bias in observed effect size.

• As‐treated analysis done with substantial departure of the intervention received from that assigned at randomisation.

• Potentially inappropriate application of simple imputation.

 Unclear

Any one of the following:

• Insufficient reporting of attrition/exclusions to permit judgement of Yes or No (e.g. number randomised not stated, no reasons for missing data provided).

• The trial did not address this outcome.

Yes, low risk of bias

Any of the following:

• The trial protocol is available and all of the pre‐specified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest in the review have been reported in the pre‐specified way.

• The trial protocol is not available but it is clear that the published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were pre‐specified (convincing text of this nature may be uncommon).

No, high risk of bias

Any one of the following:

• Not all of the trial's pre‐specified primary outcomes reported.

• One or more primary outcomes is reported using measurements, analysis methods or subsets of the data (e.g. subscales) that were not pre‐specified.

• One or more reported primary outcomes were not pre‐specified (unless clear justification for their reporting is provided, such as an unexpected adverse effect).

• One or more outcomes of interest in the review are reported incompletely so that they cannot be entered in a meta‐analysis.

• The trial report fails to include results for a key outcome that would be expected to have been reported for such a trial.

Unclear

Insufficient information to permit judgement of Yes or No to be made. It is likely that the majority of trials will fall into this category.

Yes, low risk of bias

The trial appears to be free of other sources of bias.

No, high risk of bias

There is at least one important risk of bias. For example, the trial:

• Had a potential source of bias related to the specific trial design used; or

• Stopped early due to some data‐dependent process (including a formal‐stopping rule); or

• Had extreme baseline imbalance; or

• Has been claimed to have been fraudulent; or

• Had some other problem.

Unclear

There may be a risk of bias, but there is either:

• Insufficient information to assess whether an important risk of bias exists; or

• Insufficient rationale or evidence that an identified problem will introduce bias