Summary of characteristics of studies comparing RAADP to control, with reported odds ratios for sensitisation.

<p>Summary of characteristics of studies comparing RAADP to control, with reported odds ratios for sensitisation.</p

Impact of adjusting for internal and external bias in the Trolle study.

<p>Impact of adjusting initially for internal bias and subsequently for both internal and external bias (using pooled internal bias-adjusted results) on the odds ratio (and 95% interval), for each assessor separately and combined using median pooling.</p

Potential internal biases identified in the studies.

<p>Potential internal biases identified in the studies.</p

Impact of adjusting for bias in the meta-analysis of 10 studies comparing RAADP to control.

<p>(a) unadjusted odds ratios (with 95% CIs); (b) odds ratios adjusted for internal biases (with 95% CIs); (c) odds ratios adjusted for all biases (with 95% CIs).</p

Elicitation scales.

<p>Elicitation scales for quantifying additive biases on a relative risk scale and for quantifying proportional biases as proportional change to (log) relative risk.</p

Exploratory analysis comparing different dose regimens.

<p>For each of seven RAADP treatment regimens: elicited relative effectiveness compared to an optimally effective treatment (67% intervals pooled across assessors); observed odds ratios comparing RAADP to control (with 95% intervals), where available; and odds ratios expected in a future study comparing RAADP to control (with 95% intervals), obtained from a fitted meta-regression model. (Higher values for relative effectiveness compared to an optimal treatment correspond to lower odds ratios compared to control.).</p

Biases in the Trolle study.

<p>(a) 67% ranges elicited from assessors A–D for additive internal biases, with means and 67% ranges for total internal bias; (b) 67% ranges elicited from assessors E–H for proportional external biases, with means and 67% ranges for total external bias.</p