Boiron 2007.

Methods	Country: France RCT Four study groups. Randomisation method described Allocation concealment unclear Blinding of personnel delivering the intervention unclear Blinding of outcome assessor unclear
Participants	43 participants were recruited and participated in the study (23 males/20 females); all were born between 29 and less than 34 weeks and entered the protocol at between 32 and less than 34 weeks GA; no older than 4 days of age Treatment group 1 (stimulation and support): 9 participants (5 males/4 females), age range 32 to 34 weeks, mean GA 31.3 weeks, mean birth weight 1718 grams Treatment group 2 (stimulation): 11 participants (4 males/7 females), age range 32 to 24 weeks, mean GA 31.1 weeks, mean birth weight 1446 grams Treatment group 3 (support): 11 participants (7 male/4 female), age range 32 to 34 weeks, mean GA 31.6 weeks, mean birth weight 1714 grams Control group: 11 participants (7 male/4 female), age range 32 to 34 weeks, mean GA 31.1 weeks, mean birth weight 1442 grams
Interventions	Treatment group 1: received oral stimulation and support Treatment group 2: received oral stimulation only Treatment group 3: received support only Control group: no intervention described; assumed standard care Infants in treatment group 1 received 12 minutes of a clearly described oral stimulation protocol 30 minutes before gavage feed for last 14 consecutive days of period of gavage, and oral support for 2 oral feeds a day for a maximum of 10 minutes per bottle during the transition period. Treatment groups 2 and 3 each received only 1 component of this programme.
Outcomes	All participants had a baseline sucking assessment with a pacifier and a transducer recording system. Five‐minute recordings were taken at 3, 7 and 14 days. Outcome measures: Sucking pressure Time (days) taken to attain exclusive oral feeding Number of bottle feeds per day and quantity of milk (percentage) ingested per day
Notes	Adverse events were not reported.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	A blocked randomisation process is described: "randomisation lists were computer generated with blocks of varying size".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	This is not described.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Investigators were not blinded to intervention groups.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Measures of sucking were made by investigators; it is unclear who decided to increase volume of oral feeding.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All outcomes are reported. No data were missing.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All of the study’s prespecified outcomes and all expected outcomes of interest to the review have been reported.
Other bias	High risk	Adverse events were not reported. It is unclear who decided to increase volume of oral feeding as intervention progressed.