Supplementary (File 2): Author judgment for ROB assessment:

Author, Year / Domain / Author Judgment
Hauser et al 2014[1] / Random sequence generation (selection bias) / Unclear- No mention of the method
Allocation concealment (selection bias) / Unclear- No mention of the method
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) / Low- “Double-blinded”
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) / Low- “Double-blinded”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) / Low - 100 % of randomly assigned patients entered efficacy and safety analyses.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) / Low
Other bias / Unclear- Funded by drug company
Author, Year / Domain / Author Judgment
Kaufmann et al 2014[2] / Random sequence generation (selection bias) / Adequate- "centralized, computerized randomization schedule"
Allocation concealment (selection bias) / Adequate- "centralized, computerized randomization schedule"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) / Low- “Double-blinded”
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) / Low- “Double-blinded”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) / Low - 100 % of randomly assigned patients entered efficacy and safety analyses.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) / Low
Other bias / Unclear- Funded by drug company
Author, Year / Domain / Author Judgment
Biaggioni et al 2015[3] / Random sequence generation (selection bias) / Unclear- No mention for the method
Allocation concealment (selection bias) / Unclear- No mention for the method
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) / Low- “Double-blinded”
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) / Low- “Double-blinded”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) / Low - 100 % of randomly assigned patients entered efficacy and safety analyses.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) / Low
Other bias / Unclear- Funded by drug company
Author, Year / Domain / Author Judgment
Hauser et al 2014[4] / Random sequence generation (selection bias) / Unclear- No mention for the method
Allocation concealment (selection bias) / Unclear- No mention for the method
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) / Low- “Double-blinded”
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) / Low- “Double-blinded”
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) / Low - 100 % of randomly assigned patients entered efficacy and safety analyses.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) / Low
Other bias / Unclear- Funded by drug company

References

1. Hauser R a., Hewitt LA, Isaacson S (2014) Droxidopa in patients with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension associated with Parkinson’s Disease (NOH306A). J Parkinsons Dis 4:57–65. doi: 10.3233/JPD-130259

2. Kaufmann H, Freeman R, Biaggioni I, et al. (2014) Droxidopa for neurogenic orthostatic hypotension: A randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Neurology 83:328–335. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000615

3. Biaggioni I, Freeman R, Mathias CJ, et al. (2015) Randomized Withdrawal Study of Patients With Symptomatic Neurogenic Orthostatic Hypotension Responsive to Droxidopa. Hypertension 65:101–7. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.04035.

4. Hauser RA, Isaacson S, Lisk JP, et al. (2014) Droxidopa for the Short-Term Treatment of Symptomatic Neurogenic Orthostatic Hypotension in Parkinson’s Disease (nOH306B). Neurology 00:1–9. doi: 10.1002/mds.26086