and reliably by the variables available in this study? 1.6. Did the authors control for No No No No No No any post-intervention variables that could have been affected by the intervention? 1.7. Did the authors use an No (e.g. compliance No (e.g. compliance No (e.g. no No (e.g. general No (e.g. no Yes (patients were appropriate analysis method that to treatment was not to treatment was not adjustment for health problems estimation of hospitalized and adjusted for all the important assessed) assessed) concomitant medical may have compliance to monitored for confounding domains and for conditions) contributed to the treatment, no compliance, side time-varying confounding? number of visits or correction of other effects and symptom concomitant confounders) change weekly) treatments with drugs) 1.8. If Y/PY to 1.7: Were / / / / / / confounding domains that were adjusted for measured validly and reliably by the variables available in this study? Risk of bias judgement Serious risk of bias Serious risk of bias Serious risk of bias Serious risk of bias Serious risk of bias Low risk of bias Bias in 2.1. Was selection of participants No No No No No No into the study (or into the selection of analysis) based on participant participants characteristics observed after the into the study start of intervention? 2.2. If Y/PY to 2.1: Were the / / / / / / post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be associated with intervention? 2.3 If Y/PY to 2.2: Were the / / / / / / post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be influenced by the outcome or a cause of the outcome? 2.4. Do start of follow-up and Yes Yes No (change of Probably yes (it is Probably yes (it is No (the results of start of intervention coincide for intervention was not completely clear not completely clear genotyping were most participants? based on clinician’s the congruence the congruence available at week 4) decision) between between prescriptions and prescriptions and PGx results) PGx results)
and reliably by the variables available in this study? 1.6. Did the authors control for any post-intervention variables that could have been affected by the intervention? No No No No No No 1.7. Did the authors use an appropriate analysis method that adjusted for all the important confounding domains and for time-varying confounding? No (e.g. compliance to treatment was not assessed) No (e.g. compliance to treatment was not assessed) No (e.g. no adjustment for concomitant medical conditions) No (e.g. general health problems may have contributed to the number of visits or concomitant treatments with drugs) No (e.g. no estimation of compliance to treatment, no correction of other confounders) Yes (patients were hospitalized and monitored for compliance, side effects and symptom change weekly) 1.8. If Y/PY to 1.7: Were confounding domains that were adjusted for measured validly and reliably by the variables available in this study? / / / / / / Risk of bias judgement Serious risk of bias Serious risk of bias Serious risk of bias Serious risk of bias Serious risk of bias Low risk of bias Bias in selection of participants into the study 2.1. Was selection of participants into the study (or into the analysis) based on participant characteristics observed after the start of intervention? No No No No No No 2.2. If Y/PY to 2.1: Were the post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be associated with intervention? / / / / / / 2.3 If Y/PY to 2.2: Were the post-intervention variables that influenced selection likely to be influenced by the outcome or a cause of the outcome? / / / / / / 2.4. Do start of follow-up and start of intervention coincide for most participants? Yes Yes No (change of intervention was based on clinician’s decision) Probably yes (it is not completely clear the congruence between prescriptions and PGx results) Probably yes (it is not completely clear the congruence between prescriptions and PGx results) No (the results of genotyping were available at week 4)
1-s2.0-S0278584618302586-mmc3.docx