Sohn 2009 (B).

Study characteristics
Methods	Single‐centre, prospective, randomised controlled trial Run‐in period: from August 2007 to April 2008 Registration date: not available, published in 2009 Number of study centres and locations: single centre, authors from University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Participants	Patients from part B were included in this analysis (see Interventions). A total of 78 participants undergoing elective CABG were assessed. The study was divided into four parts, i.e. A, B, C, and D. The number of participants was as follows – A: 20, B: 20, C: 19, and D: 19. There were 16 participants in each group, except for the control group (n = 14). Mean age: 65 years Sex (female/male ratio): 0.54 Low‐risk patients (elective CABG) Inclusion criteria: elective CABG Exclusion criteria: subjects who recently attended emergency or who suffered from any chronic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Crohn’s disease, and COPD
Interventions	Part A: trillium‐coated circuits Part B: Bioline‐coated circuits Part C: PC‐coated circuits Part D: PMEA‐coated circuits Control: an uncoated circuit
Outcomes	TNF‐α, IL‐6, and IL‐10 Samples collected before CPB, 6 hours after CPB, and 72 hours after CPB
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Authors state that patients were randomised, but process was not described: "…were randomly assigned to five groups with different biocompatible coated circuits".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details given around concealment of allocation
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not described, plausible for participants
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No clear details given
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No trial group changes, no withdrawals, and no losses to follow‐up were reported, but no intention‐to‐treat analysis. Data from all the participants were included in the final analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All expected outcomes were reported properly.
Other bias	Low risk	One of the authors received a non‐industry‐funded scholarship.