Hu 1998.

Methods	Randomised clinical trial, USA
Participants	40 hospitalised adults admitted for 2‐stage anterior and posterior spinal reconstructive surgery, at nutritional risk due to major surgery Male:Female = 9:31 Mean age = 50.5 Exclusion criteria: Poorly‐controlled diabetes or had other medical contraindications
Interventions	Experimental group: TPN through a subclavian Hone catheter. It was started on the 1st postoperative day at 40 ml/hr and increased until calculated nutritional needs were achieved. Weaning began when they could consume 50% of their daily requirements orally. (n = 20) Control group: Standard intravenous fluids (n = 20)
Outcomes	Operative time, blood loss, transfusion requirements, all complications, length of hospital stay, albumin, pre‐albumin, weight, triceps skinfold, total lymphocyte count
Study dates	May 1994 to June 1997
Notes	We contacted the authors on 23rd August 2015 by email: shu3@stanford.edu, and obtained additional information.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	The trial used a random‐number list for the sequence generation.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The trial was described as randomised, but it was unclear how the allocation was concealed.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Only the experimental group had placement of a catheter.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	It was unclear how the outcome was assessed.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	1 of the participants was transferred from the experimental group to the control group due to not receiving the intervention. There was also over 5% dropouts not accounted for with proper methodology.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol could be obtained, and the trial did not report all‐cause mortality or serious adverse events properly.
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.