Skip if not rejecting. Don't fill out rest if you are rejecting

List PMID(s) or other identifier for related article

Skip if no identifying name available.

Answer in one row only (but ok to leave data in both rows 1 and 2). Row 1 refers to N who meet all CKD criteria. Row 2 refers to total N when data for row 1 unclear (ie, in abstract). Similarly, row 3 is applicable only to abstract mapping phase. Across all arms. Ensure that each counted arm has N>=10.

Check citation title

For each drug: Drug name dose frequency. Split up specific drugs, even if they are given in a combination pill. Include duration only if the specific drug is used for a different duration than the whole regimen. (If duration varied by gt, note in next question.) Std abbreviations: qD, BID, TID, QID, qOD, qW, BIW; gt = genotype (put in parentheses if drug used only a specific gt). Eg: Ombitasvir 25 mg qD Paritaprevir 150 mg qD Dasabuvir 250 mg BID (gt 1) Ritonavir 100 mg qD (gt 1a, 4, cirrhosis)

If mean or median (with SD, IQR, etc.), specify explicitly. If duration (of whole regimen) varies by genotype or other factor, note it in parentheses. (If duration of one drug is different, note that in the prior question for that drug. Put the full duration of the regimen here.) Abbreviations: d, wk, mo (but try to convert to weeks). Eg, 12 wk 12 wk (gt 1b) 24 wk (gt 1a, 4, cirrhosis)

Enter as per template in row headers

Should sum to 100% for each arm. We will treat groups >=90% as if they were 100%, but do note the <10% groups.

There is low risk of detection bias if the blinding of the outcome assessment was ensured and it was unlikely that the blinding could have been broken; or if there was no blinding or incomplete blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome is not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding. WE SHOULD DISCUSS WHICH OUTCOMES (MAYBE ALL) THIS IS RELEVANT FOR.

20% threshold (or imbalance between groups)

There is LOW risk of reporting bias ONLY if the study protocol is available and all of the study’s pre-specified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest in the review have been reported in the pre-specified way. There is a HIGH risk of reporting bias if not all of the study’s pre-specified primary outcomes have been reported (pre-specified either in protocol or in methods section). Also HIGH risk of bias if one or more outcomes of interest in the review are reported incompletely so that they cannot be entered in a meta-analysis. Usually UNCLEAR risk of bias.

If self-describe ITT, confirm actually is ITT. If 100% reporting, then equivalent to ITT. Provide info about meaning of ITT or reason not ITT

If yes, consider whether should reject. Try your best to select Y or N

E.g., based off of "Table 1". No statistically significant (or large) differences of a clinically important factor.

Comparative studies only (where we evaluate the analysis of the comparison)