Zhao 2003.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: RCT, parallel two‐arm, single‐centre study Setting: university teaching hospital, Beijing, China Recruitment: January 2000 to October 2000 Maximum follow‐up: not reported
Participants	60 participants undergoing elective primary coronary artery bypass graft surgery were randomly allocated to one of two groups: Group 1 (Shed mediastinal blood) (cell salvage/intervention group): N = 30. M:F 26:4. Mean (SD) age 59.5 (8.0) Group 2 (Banked blood only) (control/no cell salvage group): N = 30. M:F 27:3. Mean (SD) age 59.2 (8.2) There were no differences between groups at baseline assessment.
Interventions	Group 1 (Shed mediastinal blood) (cell salvage/intervention group): cell salvage group participants received non‐washed shed mediastinal blood re‐transfused postoperatively after CABG using a cell saver device (Beijing PerMed Biomedical Engineering Company) up to 18 hours post‐surgery. Shed blood not returned within 4 hours was discarded and a new bag attached. When > 200 mL of shed mediastinal blood was collected within 4 hours, the patients received autologous blood if volume replacement was considered necessary. Extracorporeal blood was routinely returned to patients after CABG. Group 2 (Banked blood only) (control/no cell salvage group): control group received banked allogeneic blood only. Autotransfusion was not used. Extracorporeal blood was routinely returned to patients after CABG.
Outcomes	Outcomes reported: number of participants transfused allogeneic blood, volume of allogeneic blood transfused, number of participants transfused autologous blood, volume of autologous blood transfused, blood loss
Notes	Transfusion protocol: the use of a transfusion protocol for allogeneic blood transfusion was not reported. Prospective registration status: the study was published prior to 2010. Ethical approval: it is not clear whether the study was approved by an ethics committee or institutional review board. Language of publication: English Trial funding: not reported Conflicts of interest: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method used to generate allocation sequences was not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method used to conceal treatment allocation was not described.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Objective outcome: mortality	Low risk	No objective outcomes reported (mortality unlikely to be affected by blinding if reported in future publications)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Subjective: transfusion protocol	High risk	No transfusion protocol in place
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Subjective: all other outcomes	High risk	No protocols; no blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes: mortality and transfusions	Low risk	No objective outcomes reported (mortality unlikely to be affected by blinding if reported in future publications)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes	High risk	No protocols; no blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All participants randomised are accounted for in the reported outcomes; appears to be ITT
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No trial registration or published protocol is available to compare
Other bias	Unclear risk	No baseline imbalance. No mention of funding or conflicts of interest