Table 2 Quality assessment of included randomized controlled trials
Author (year) Country | Number of centres | Number of patients | Blinding | concealed allocation | Intention-to-treat analysis | Stopped early for benefit | Post randomization Withdrawal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Georges (1999) France [12] | 1 | 18 | N | NR | NR | N | NR |
Hanes (2000) USA [13] | 1 | 32 | N | NR | NR | N | Y (1 from each group) |
Nicolau (2001) USA [14] | 1 | 41 | N | NR | NR | N | Y (5 from CI group and 1 from control group) |
Wysocki (2001) France [15] | 10 | 160 | N | Y (consecutive sealed opaque envelopes) | Y | N | Y (15 from CI and 26 from control group) |
Bujik (2002) Netherlands [16]a | 1 | 18 | N | NR | NR | N | NR |
Georges (2005) France [17] | 1 | 50 | N | NR | NR | N | NR |
Rafati (2006) Iran [18] | 1 | 40 | N | NR | NR | N | NR |
Roberts (2007) Australia [19] | 1 | 57 | N | Y (sequential opaque sealed envelopes) | Y | N | N |
Sakka (2007) Germany [20] | 1 | 20 | N | Y (sealed envelopes) | NR | N | NR |
Adembri (2008) Italy [21] | 1 | 16 | N | Y (closed envelopes) | NR | N | Y (1 died, 1 developed ARF; group(s) not specified) |
Wang (2009) China [32] | 1 | 30 | N | NR | NR | N | NR |
Chyta (2012) Czech [22] | 1 | 240 | N | Y (sealed opaque envelopes) | Y | N | N for mortality and LoS, but Y (14 in CI and, 12 in control group) for cure data |
Dulhunty (2012) Australia [29] | 5 | 60 | Y | Y (sequentially numbered sealed envelopes) | Y | N | N |