Lehmann 2007.

Methods	Study design: randomized parallel groups Study dates: "2004" (email bias survey, see notes)
Participants	Country: Germany Sex: both Age: 65 Procedure: coronary artery bypass grafting Study size: 66
Interventions	Randomized portion of anaesthetic: ADM vs SCP Intervention 1: BIS 50 (45 to 55) N = 33 Intervention 2: BIS 40 (35 to 45) N = 33 Simultaneously, state entropy and response entropy were recorded
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: Quote: "designed and powered to compare differences in the values of BIS and spectral entropy" Secondary outcome: awareness/wakefulness as defined using an awareness classification system (see Table 1): class 1 Comment: no recall
Notes	Non‐randomized portion of anaesthetic: parts of IV N2O no/narcotics/hypnotics bolus MCI/muscle relaxant induction yes/maintenance yes ADM entropy measured BIS 50 group induction: midazolam (0.07 mg/kg) + sufentanil (1 µg/kg) + pancuronium (0.1 mg/kg); maintenance: sufentanil 1.5 µg to 2 µg/kg/h + midazolam 0.03 mg to 0.07 mg/kg and sufentanil 0.5 µg to 1 µg/kg as needed BIS 40 group induction: midazolam (0.1 mg/kg) + sufentanil (1.5 µg/kg) + pancuronium (0.1 mg/kg): maintenance: sufentanil 0.5 µg to 1.5 µg/kg/h + midazolam 0.05 µg to 0.1 µg/kg and sufentanil 1 µg to 2 µg/kg as needed Anaesthesia maintenance: O2 in air 50% + pancuronium 0.03 mc/kg as needed The spectral entropy parameters RE and SE were measured Comment: see Dryad topic reduction in inotropic support Time of outcome determination: third day after surgery Method of outcome determination: interview Survey response: 18 January 2011, andreasa@klilu.de
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "flipping coin" (email bias survey, see notes)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Quote: "No concealment" (email bias survey, see notes) Comment: the randomization is to an open BIS endpoint of 40 and 50 and anaesthesia is targeted to a specific BIS endpoint value of 40 or 50. As in other RCTs merged into a meta‐analysis in this review, there would be no downgrade for this method of allocation in determining the quality of evidence.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "Patient" (email bias survey, see notes) Comment: impact on quality of evidence the same as above
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "Patient" (email bias survey, see notes)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Data were complete in all patients." (email bias survey, see notes)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Study protocol is available; primary and secondary outcomes have been reported. Study was not designed to detect awareness" (email bias survey, see notes) Quote: "Hemodynamics, mixed venous oxygen saturation were recorded but not reported" (email bias survey, see notes)
Other bias	Low risk	Quote: "BIS and entropy values were manually recorded" (email bias survey, see notes)