Botella‐Carretero 2010.

Methods	Randomised clinical trial, Spain
Participants	60 hospitalised adults with hip fractures, at nutritional risk due to hip surgery Male:Female = 16:44 Mean age = 83.5 years Exclusion criteria: "Patients with moderate–severe malnutrition (those with a weight loss of more than 5% in the previous month or more than 10% in the previous 6 months from their usual weight, and/or serum albumin concentrations below 2.7 g/dL) were automatically excluded from the study. All of these patients receive supplementation according to our Institution protocol, following current guidelines. Other exclusion criteria were acute and/or chronic renal failure, hepatic insufficiency or cirrhosis (Child B or C), severe heart failure with class III or IV of the New York Heart Association (NYHA), respiratory failure, and any gastrointestinal condition that may preclude from adequate oral nutritional intake. None of the patients had been on ONS from the previous 6 months, or had received any nutritional support by any other means.
Interventions	Experimental group: Oral nutrition energy and protein support by means of commercial enteral nutrition for oral intake (Fortimel, 200 mL bricks, each provides 20 g protein and 200 kcal, Nutricia Advanced Medical Nutrition ‐ Danone Group) to aim at 40 g of protein and 400 kcal a day (2 bricks a day). The treatment was started at admission, before surgery and maintained until the day of hospital discharge. (n = 30) Control group: No intervention (n = 30) Co‐interventions: Every adult was prescribed a standard or texture‐adapted diet to meet their calculated metabolic rate.
Outcomes	Mortality, serum proteins, BMI, postoperative complications, weight, postoperative hospital stay, time of immobilisation after surgery
Study dates	May 2007 to September 2008
Notes	We contacted the authors on 6th June 2015 by email: jbotella.hrc@salud.madrid.org about data on BMI, weight and complications, which could not be extracted from the full text.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	The randomisation was concealed by means of sealed opaque envelopes.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants were not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	The procedure of blinding was insufficiently described.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Intention‐to‐treat analysis was performed with the last observation carried forward to evaluate data of all participants at hospital discharge. There were incomplete data for 32 participants.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The protocol could not be obtained, but the study reported on mortality and complications.
For‐profit bias	Low risk	One of the Researchers, B.I. was supported by the Fundación para la Investigación Biomédica Hospital Ramón y Cajal (FIBio‐RyC), Madrid, Spain.
Other bias	Low risk	The trial appeared to be free of other components that could put it at risk of bias.