Aldrete 2010.

Methods	A comparative, double‐blind randomized controlled trial
Participants	Age: N/A Gender: N/A Inclusion criteria: N/A Exclusion criteria: N/A Recruitment: 22 adult patients undergoing pain relief procedures Setting: USA
Interventions	Admixture Propofol 1.7 mg/kg from Baxter Laboratories, premixed with either 5 ml of 2% lidocaine or 5 ml of NaCl 0.9%, was compared with propofol Laboratorios Dr Gray, which was similarly mixed. Baxter premixed with 2% lidocaine 5 ml Baxter premixed with NSS 5 ml Gray premixed with 2% lidocaine 5 ml Gray premixed with NSS 5 ml 16 injections were randomly administered four times each, blindly, to each of 22 patients (total 352 injections).
Outcomes	Pain intensity assessed on 4‐point scale 0 = None 1 = Verbal complaint 2 = Moved arm 3 = Moved body (Moved arms or body was considered as moderate to severe pain) Outcomes reported and used Incidence of high‐intensity pain Incidence of pain Outcomes sought but not reported Adverse effects Patient satisfaction
Notes	Period of the study: dates not reported.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	N/A
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	N/A
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"The patients and the physician (J. A. A.) were blinded as to what preparation of propofol was to be administered at each treatment."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	"Evaluation of the pain response and related events were recorded by a trained observer (F. H. M.)." (but N/A about blinding)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	N/A but assuming from the table all patients were included
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	N/A
Other bias	High risk	Jose Alcover is the chief pharmacist at ‘Laboratories Dr Gray’. The Propofol used for this study was donated by ‘Laboratories Dr Gray’ to the senior author (J. A. A.)