Blomquist 1983.

Methods	Randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, cross‐over trial
Participants	Sample size: 18 infants. No withdrawals from the study Setting: recruited from 9 child health centres (CHCs) in Umeå and the surrounding area Sex: boys (44%) Mean age: not reported (SD not reported). Range 2 to 14 weeks Mean weight: not reported Mean duration of colic: not reported Mean crying: not reported Feeding: not reported Birth order: not reported Inclusion criteria: Parents must have sought help for the child at the CHC for colic problems. The CHC nurse and/or CHC doctor then determined if the child’s problems were to be considered infantile colic. Exclusion criteria: not reported
Interventions	Intervention (18 infants): dicyclomine hydrochloride 100 mg in 100 mL of solution. As the mixture has a sweet and sour flavour, sugar and lemon lime were added. Control (18 infants): placebo. Dosage was 5 mL of the respective solution, given 20 minutes before afternoon and evening meals. Parents were asked to refrain from changing the infant’s diet during treatment. Administration: After 1 week, parents returned to the CHC for follow‐up, which included a weight check. At this time, parents made an overall assessment of the treatment week. Parents returned the first bottle and were given the new code‐labelled bottle. After an additional week, parents made a new overall assessment in connection with a new visit to the CHC. Duration of study: 2 weeks Washout period: no washout period planned
Outcomes	The CHC distributed a diary containing data entry pages for 15 days of treatment. In the diary, parents recorded, for each day, times of meals, colic attacks, bowel movements and colic medications. Parents also commented on how severe they considered the child’s colic attacks to have been during the past 24‐hour period (none, mild, moderate, severe, very severe). In addition, parents assessed during which week treatment showed the highest efficacy.
Notes	Country: Sweden Funding source: Study authors did not specify whether they received financial support.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: Information was insufficient to permit a judgement of low risk. Order of use between the 2 treatment alternatives was randomly assigned.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: No information was reported.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: Two code‐labelled bottles ‐ 1 of which contained dicyclomine hydrochloride, and the other, the solution without dicyclomine hydrochloride ‐ were given to each infant.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: Two code‐labelled bottles ‐ 1 of which contained dicyclomine hydrochloride, and the other, the solution without dicyclomine hydrochloride ‐ were given to each infant.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: Study authors reported study results for all randomised infants.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Comment: Outcomes were not clearly prespecified, and details of results were not reported by study period.
Other bias	High risk	Comment: No washout period was planned.