Skip to main content
. 2019 Mar 29;2019(3):CD012212. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012212.pub2

Chohedri 2006.

Methods Design: double‐blind, prospective randomized controlled trial
 Country: Iran
 Multisite: no
 International: no
 Treatment duration: preoperative period
 Follow‐up: until discharge from the ambulatory surgical unit
 Operative procedure(s): general, orthopaedic, and gynaecologic surgeries
 Randomization unit: participants
 Analysis unit: individual
Participants

  1. 200 participants were enrolled

  2. Male and female ASA I to II participants aged 17 to 60 years undergoing ambulatory general, orthopaedic, and gynaecologic surgeries


Screened participants were excluded if they had a history of:

  1. cardiovascular disease;

  2. diabetes;

  3. motion sickness;

  4. preoperative nausea, vomiting, or dizziness.


Randomized to:

  1. group A (n = 100, 50%);

  2. group B (n = 100, 50%);

  3. no withdrawals were stated.


Main characteristics of participants:

  1. age (mean, standard deviation): group A 34.58 years, 12; group B 34.8 years, 11.1;

  2. number of females/males: 123/77.
Interventions

  1. Group A (intervention): preoperative bolus of 20 mL/kg normal saline

  2. Group B: preoperative bolus of 2 mL/kg normal saline


Co‐interventions: none stated
Outcomes

  1. Nausea and vomiting were assessed as dichotomous outcomes (present or not present) at 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and discharge from hospital

  2. Thirst and dizziness were also assessed and reported at 30 minutes, 60 minutes, and discharge
Notes Trial registration: not stated
 Funder: not stated
 A priori sample size estimation: not stated
 Conducted: dates not stated
 Declared conflicts of interest: not stated
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Paper states participants were (quote) "randomly allocated" but does not explain further.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Paper states participants were (quote) "randomly allocated" but does not explain further.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk The attending anaesthesiologist and recovery room nurses were blind to the participants' allocation group.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk The anaesthesiologist assessing the adverse outcomes was blind to the participants' allocation group.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk No withdrawals were stated.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All outcomes were reported.
Other bias Low risk There were no other sources of bias.