Dennis 2006.

Methods	Randomised clinical trial, UK
Participants	859 hospitalised adults who were 1. either admitted to hospital with a stroke (1st or recurrent stroke) within 7 days of onset OR 2. suffering a stroke whilst already in hospital AND 3. randomising clinician uncertain about the best feeding policy AND 4. consent or assent from close relatives obtained and 5. did not pass shallow screen. The participants were at nutritional risk due to having had a stroke. Exclusion: Subarachnoid haemorrhage
Interventions	Experimental group: early enteral tube‐feeding. (n = 429) Control group: no tube‐feeding for > 7 days (early versus avoid)(n = 430)
Outcomes	Death or poor outcome and overall survival, proportion of participants who were dead at 6 months, health‐related QoL among survivors, time to hospital discharge, length of stay in hospital (which will provide a surrogate outcome for analysis of cost), number of days of tube‐feeding, adverse effects of feeding regimens, premature cessation of feeding regimens and reasons
Study dates	Nov 1996 to August 2003
Notes	We contacted the authors on 12th November 2015 by email: martin.dennis@ed.ac.uk. We received data on quality of life.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Locked computer
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not blinded. Participants knew their allocation.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Only a blinded assessment at 6 months follow‐up.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	1 lost to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All clinically relevant outcomes were reported, as stated in the protocol.
For‐profit bias	Low risk	FOOD was funded by the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment Programme (Reference 96/29/01), The Stroke Association (Reference 17/98) and Chest Heart and Stroke Scotland (Reference 97/4). The Singapore Medical Research Council supported the trial in Singapore. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians supported the trial in Hawkes Bay, New Zealand.
Other bias	Low risk	The trial appeared to be free of other components that could put it at risk of bias.