| Gharbharan 2020 |
Low risk of bias |
Participants were randomized via a web‐based system in a 1:1 ratio to the current standard of care at each hospital with or without the addition of convalescent plasma. There are no baseline differences that would suggest a problem with randomisation. |
Some concerns |
Both participants and those delivering the intervention were aware of intervention received, but there was no information on deviations from intended intervention, as insufficient information was provided on whether treatments were balanced across arms. The analysis was appropriate. |
Low risk of bias |
Data for this outcome was available for all participants requiring any supplemental oxygen or ventilator support at baseline, being 77 out of 86 participants randomized. |
Low risk of bias |
The outcome assessors aware of the intervention received, but it is unlikely that knowledge of intervention received could have affected outcome measurement or that the measurement differed between intervention groups. |
Low risk of bias |
The data that produced this result was analysed in accordance with the pre‐specified analysis plan and the outcome was reported as planned in the protocol. |
Some concerns |
For the outcome "liberation from supplemental oxygen", there is a low risk of bias from the randomization process, due to missing outcome data, in measurement of the outcome and in selection of the reported result. However, there are some concerns for bias due to deviations from intended interventions. |
