McCaul 2003.

Methods	Design: double‐blind, prospective randomized controlled trial Country: UK Multisite: no International: no Treatment duration: intraoperative period Follow‐up: morning of the first postoperative day Operative procedure(s): elective gynaecological laparoscopy Randomization unit: participants Analysis unit: individual
Participants	120 participants enrolled Female participants undergoing elective diagnostic laparoscopy Participants were excluded after randomization: if they developed excessive blood loss; if the surgery progressed to include additional procedures. Randomized to: control group (n = 37, 34.3%); RL group (n = 36, 33.3%); RL/dextrose group (n = 35, 32.4%); 12 participants were excluded after randomization from the 120 originally randomized. Their group allocation is not stated. Main characteristics of participants: age (mean, standard deviation): control group 33.0 years, 5.1; RL group 32.3 years, 4.96; RL/dextrose group 33.2 years, 4.9; Number of females/males: 108/0.
Interventions	Control group (control): no intraoperative fluid bolus RL group (intervention): intraoperative bolus of 1.5 mL/kg Ringer's lactate for each hour fasted preoperatively RL/dextrose group (intervention): intraoperative bolus of 1.5 mL/kg Ringer's lactate with dextrose 0.5 g/kg Co‐interventions: none stated
Outcomes	Nausea, vomiting, and antiemetic use were documented and reported as dichotomous outcomes. They were assessed using a standardized questionnaire in the PACU, at postoperative hour 2, and on the morning of the first postoperative day. The risk of thirst, dizziness, and sore throat were also documented and reported.
Notes	Trial registration: not found Funder: none stated A priori sample size estimation: stated on page 441 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	Unmarked envelopes were used to determine group allocation.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unmarked envelopes were used to determine group allocation.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Participants were anaesthetized at the time of fluid administration. Blinding of personnel, including the attending anaesthesiologist, was not explained.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Participants were assessed by a blinded interviewer using a standardized questionnaire in the PACU.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	12 participants were excluded after randomization. No explanation was given for their exclusion. The groups to which each excluded patient was assigned was not identified.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	An intention‐to‐treat analysis was not completed.
Other bias	Low risk	There were no other sources of bias.