Risk of bias.

– information not reported in the publication or not applicable.
*Control for confounding factors; no: no adjusted analysis.
†No other risk of bias factors; no: selection of patients unclear; except Gluckman 1979: no: 5 patients with failed first-line IST followed by second-line HSCT were analyzed in both treatment groups.
‡Risk of bias: LOW required concurrent control group (YES), control for confounding factors (YES), and no other risk of bias factors (YES).
§Hosoi 2007: questionnaire sent to hospitals.
||Klingebiel 2008: The heading of table III of the paper indicates that RMS and RMS-like patients (n = 74+14 = 88) were assessed in the multivariate analysis. According to the text, patients of interest with RMS only (n = 74) were analyzed. The author confirmed the former statement that RMS and RMS-like patients (n = 88 patients) were analyzed (personal communication).