Goodarzi 2006.

Methods	Design: double‐blind, prospective randomized controlled trial Country: USA Multisite: no International: no Treatment duration: preoperative period Follow‐up: 24 hours postoperatively Operative procedure(s): ambulatory strabismus surgery under general anaesthesia Randomization unit: participants Analysis unit: individual
Participants	100 participants enrolled ASA I to II children aged 1 to 12 years undergoing ambulatory strabismus surgery under general anaesthesia Exclusion criteria included: cardiovascular problems; respiratory problems; hepatic or renal problems; prior history of nausea and vomiting. Randomized to: 10 group (n = 50, 50%); 30 group (n = 50, 50%). Main characteristics of participants: age (mean, standard deviation): 10 group 5.6 years, 1.2; 30 group 5.3 years, 0.9; number of females/males: 50/50.
Interventions	10 group (control): intraoperative infusion of 10 mL/kg/hour Ringer's lactate 30 group (intervention): intraoperative infusion of 30 mL/kg/hour Ringer's lactate Co‐interventions: none stated
Outcomes	Nausea was assessed using an ordinal scale (none, mild, moderate, or severe) and dry retching/vomiting were assessed and reported as a dichotomous outcome. These outcomes were assessed during 2 time points: in PACU by direct observation and at 24 hours postoperatively by telephone questionnaire completed by the participant's parent. A patient with moderate nausea, severe nausea, and dry retching/vomiting was scored as having PONV. Other outcomes included the presence of thirst, postoperative pain, and fever. These outcomes were reported for the entire 24‐hour postoperative period.
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)	Low risk	Randomization was carried out using a computer program.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomization was carried out using a computer program.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	PACU nurses were blinded to the allocation group, but blinding of the anaesthesiologist caring for participants was not stated.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Data collection was completed by a single investigator blinded to the technique of fluid therapy.
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.