Burimsittichai 2006.

Methods	Randomized controlled trial
Participants	Age (years, mean ± SD): Group I = 46.8 ± 13.2, Group II = 47.1 ± 14.9, Group III = 47.3 ± 13.5, Group IV = 48.2 ± 15.3 Gender (M:F): Group I = 32:58, Group II = 23:67, Group III = 29:61, Group IV = 37:53 Inclusion criteria: ASA I‐III, elective surgery Exclusion criteria: patients with history of hypersensitivity to propofol or any of the constituents of the emulsion, patients with haemodynamic instability, ASA IV, pregnancy Recruitment: 360 adult patients randomly assigned (90 in each group) Setting: Thailand
Interventions	Pretreatment with venous occlusion All patients were randomly allocated into 4 groups: Group I (L+LCT) propofol LCT 2 mg/kg after pretreatment of 1% lidocaine 2 ml IV Group II (L + MCT/LCT) propofol MCT/LCT 2 mg/kg after pretreatment with 1% lidocaine 2 ml IV Group III (P + MCT/LCT) propofol MCT/LCT 2 mg/kg after 0.9% NaCl 2 ml IV, Group IV (P + mixed L + LCT) propofol LCT 2 mg/kg premixed with lidocaine 1% after 0.9% NaCl 2 ml IV All groups received pretreatment under venous occlusion for 60 sec
Outcomes	Pain intensity assessed on 4‐point scale 0 = no pain 1 = mild pain 2 = moderate pain 3 = 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)	Low risk	Computer‐generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomized opaque sealed envelopes
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	N/A
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Blinded investigator
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No withdrawals
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	N/A
Other bias	Low risk	The study appears to be free of other sources of bias