Skip to main content
. 2021 May 20;2021(5):CD013600. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013600.pub4

Risk of bias for analysis 1.7 Time to discharge from hospital.

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
Avendano‐Sola 2020 Low risk of bias Participants were randomized through a web‐based eCRF system (ORACLE clinical) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either convalescent plasma in addition to the standard therapy or standard of care alone and the allocation sequence was concealed. There are no baseline differences that would suggest a problem with randomisation. Low risk of bias Both participants and those delivering the intervention were aware of intervention received, but there were no deviations from intended interventions and the analysis was appropriate. Low risk of bias Data for this outcome was available for all 81 participants randomized. 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 The data that produced this result was analysed in accordance with the predefined outcomes stated in the trial registration. Low risk of bias For the outcome "time to discharge from hospital", there is a low risk of bias for all the domains.
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 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 this outcome, 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.
Li 2020 Low risk of bias Participants were block randomized via computer‐generated random numbering in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard treatment coupled with convalescent plasma transfusion or standard treatment alone and the allocation sequence was concealed. There are no baseline differences that would suggest a problem with randomisation. Low risk of bias Both participants and those delivering the intervention were aware of intervention received, but there were no deviations from intended interventions and the analysis was appropriate. Low risk of bias Data for this outcome was available for all 103 participants randomized. 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 not aware of the intervention received. 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. Low risk of bias For the outcome "time to discharge from hospital", all the domains have a low risk of bias.
Ray 2020 Some concerns Participants were probably allocated randomly to either the standard of care group alone or standard of care with convalescent plasma group and there were no further information given on the randomization process. There is no information on the allocation concealment, the trial registry only indicates concealment through "Case Record Numbers". There were no baseline imbalances that would suggest a problem with randomisation. Low risk of bias Both participants and those delivering the intervention were aware of intervention received, but there were no deviations from intended interventions and the analysis was appropriate. Low risk of bias Data for this outcome was available for all 80 participants randomized. 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 The data that produced this result was analysed in accordance with the predefined outcomes stated in the trial registration. Some concerns For the outcome "time to discharge from hospital" in this study, there is a low risk of bias due to deviations from intended interventions, due to missing outcome data, in measurement of the outcome and in selection of the reported result. There are some concerns for bias from the randomization process.
Simonovich 2020 Low risk of bias Participants were randomized through a randomization program (REDCap) in a 2:1 ratio to receive either convalescent plasma or a placebo. The allocation sequence was random and concealed. There are no baseline differences that would suggest a problem with randomisation. Low risk of bias Both participants and carers and people delivering the intervention were unaware of the assigned intervention received and the analysis was appropriate. Low risk of bias From the 334 participants randomized data was available for 228 participants in the convalescent plasma group and 105 participants in the placebo group. The data of one participant in control group was missing, due to withdrawal of consent after randomisation and therefore the participant was excluded. 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 unaware of the intervention received. 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. Low risk of bias For the outcome "time to discharge from hospital ", all the domains have a low risk of bias.