Maharaj 2005.

Methods	Design: double‐blind, prospective randomized controlled trial Country: Ireland Multisite: no International: no Treatment duration: preoperative period Follow‐up: 72 hours postoperatively Operative procedure(s): diagnostic gynaecological laparoscopy Randomization unit: participants Analysis unit: individual
Participants	80 participants enrolled ASA I to III female participants aged 18 to 50 years undergoing diagnostic gynaecologic laparoscopy Exclusion criteria included: history of relevant drug allergy; cigarette smoking; surgical procedure beyond diagnostic laparoscopy. Excluded after randomization: intraoperative hypotension; excessive blood loss; if the surgery progressed to include additional procedures. Randomized to: control group (n = 39, 48.8%); large‐volume infusion group (n = 41, 51.2%); no withdrawals were reported. Main characteristics of participants: age (mean, standard error of mean): control group 35.8 years, 1.4; large volume infusion group 33.7 years, 1.4; number of females/males: 80/0.
Interventions	Control group (control): preoperative bolus of 2 mL/kg Ringer's lactate for each hour fasted preoperatively Large‐volume infusion group (intervention): preoperative bolus of 3 mL/kg Ringer's lactate Co‐interventions: none stated
Outcomes	Nausea was assessed using a 10‐point verbal analogue scale at 5 time points: in PACU when conversant, and at 1, 4, 24, and 72 hours postoperatively. Nausea severity was scored as none (0), mild (1 to 2), moderate (3 to 5), or severe (6 to 10). Vomiting events and administration of rescue antiemetics were documented. PONV events were reported as any occurrence of nausea (verbal analogue scale 1 to 10), vomiting, or need for antiemetic therapy. The number of participants who required overnight admission to hospital was reported. Pain was also assessed at each time point using a 10‐point verbal analogue scale. Administration of analgesic medication was also documented.
Notes	Trial registration: not stated Funder: "funded from departmental resources" A priori sample size estimation: stated on page 676 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	Sealed envelopes were used to determine group allocation.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Sealed envelopes were used to determine group allocation.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Participants, anaesthesiologists, and PACU nurses were blind to group allocation.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The investigator completing patient assessments in PACU was blind to group allocation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No withdrawals were noted.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes were reported.
Other bias	Low risk	There were no other sources of bias.