Safety of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma: A definitive systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Doctor Arturo Casadevall and Doctor David Sullivan declare financial conflicts of interest. All the other authors declare no competing financial interests. Figure S1. Flow diagram of literature studies selection. Figure S2. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study. Figure S3. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgments about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies. Figure S4. Forest plot of comparison: Convalescent Plasma vs Standard Plasma, outcome: 1.1 Any adverse reaction. Figure S5. Forest plot of comparison: Convalescent Plasma vs Standard Plasma, outcome: 1.2 Serious adverse reactions. Figure S6. Forest plot of comparison: Convalescent Plasma vs Standard Plasma, outcome: 1.4 Treatment-related adverse reactions (any grade). Figure S7. Forest plot of comparison: Convalescent Plasma vs Standard Plasma, outcome: 1.4 Treatment-related adverse reactions (serious). Figure S8. Forest plot of comparison: Convalescent Plasma vs Standard Plasma, outcome: 1.6 Venous and arterial thrombotic events. Table S1. Analysis of RCTs on the safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Table S2. Randomized controlled trials excluded from the systematic review. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.