Xu 2007.

Methods	Study design: Parallel‐group RCT Location: Nanjing, China Number of centres: 1 Study period: December 2004 to June 2006 Funding source: No external funding
Participants	Setting: ICU in drum tower hospital of Nanjing University Inclusion criteria: Critically ill adult patients in ICU receiving mechanical ventilation Exclusion criteria: Patients with severe oral diseases, mechanical ventilation for > 24 hours prior to study entry, those who refused oral care protocol Number randomised: 164 Number evaluated: 164 Baseline characteristics: Not reported for each randomised group
Interventions	Comparison: Saline swab versus saline rinse versus both Experimental group A (n = 58): Rinsing the oropharyngeal cavity with saline for 5 ‐ 10 seconds, followed by suction aspiration, repeated 5 ‐ 10 times twice daily for 7 days Experimental group B (n = 62): Both wipe and rinse as above, twice daily for 7 days Control group (n = 44): Usual care ‐ wiping the oropharyngeal cavity with saline‐soaked cotton ball twice daily for 7 days
Outcomes	VAP, stomatitis, fungal infection
Notes	Diagnosis of VAP was according to Chinese Society of Respiratory Diseases criteria Information translated from Chinese paper by Shi Zongdao and colleagues
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"randomly allocated" but no details of sequence generation described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not possible
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All randomised participants included in outcome evaluation
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Planned outcomes reported
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias identified