Gunerhan 2009.
Methods | Randomised clinical trial, Turkey | |
Participants | 38 hospitalised adults with gastrointestinal tumours admitted for surgery, at nutritional risk according to the trialist Male:Female = 9:17 Mean age = 62.5 Exclusion criteria: Diabetes mellitus, renal or hepatic failure or both, active infection, a history of immunosuppressive drug use or clinical signs of vitamin or trace element deficiency |
|
Interventions | Experimental group: Standard enteral feeding (without RNA and omega3)(n = 19) Control group: Normal feeding planned by a dietitian(n = 19) |
|
Outcomes | Lymphocyte count, complications, length of hospital stay | |
Study dates | Not stated | |
Notes | There was also a 3rd group of immunonutrition, not included in this review. We contacted the authors on 19th August 2015 by email: ygunerhan@gmail.com . We received no reply. | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not described |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not described |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not blinded. Only the experimental group received a tube. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not described |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Above 5% dropouts and the trial did not allow proper methodology for intention‐to‐treat analysis. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | No protocol could be obtained, and the trial did not report all‐cause mortality or serious adverse events. |
For‐profit bias | Unclear risk | It was unclear how the trial was funded. |
Other bias | Low risk | The trial appeared to be free of other components that could put it at risk of bias. |