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

Risk of bias for analysis 2.5 Serious adverse events.

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
O’Donnell 2021 Low risk of bias Participants were block randomized using a web‐based randomization platform in a 2:1 ratio to receive either convalescent plasma or standard plasma 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 people delivering the intervention were unaware of the assigned intervention received and the analysis was appropriate. Low risk of bias Data for this outcome was available for nearly all (219 out of 223) 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 unaware of the intervention received. 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 "serious adverse events", there is a low risk of bias for all the domains.