Keele 1997.
Methods | Randomised clinical trial, UK | |
Participants | 100 hospitalised adults admitted for major abdominal surgery, at nutritional risk due to major abdominal surgery Male:female = 48:38 (gender not reported for 14) Mean age: 62.5 years |
|
Interventions | Experimental group: Standard ward diet + oral supplements (200 ml (1.5 kcal/ml and 0.05 g protein/ml)(n = 47) Control group: Standard ward diet(n = 53) |
|
Outcomes | All‐cause mortality, complications, nutritional status, anthropometrics, hand‐grip strength | |
Study dates | Not stated | |
Notes | We could obtain no contact information for the authors. | |
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 | Unclear risk | Not described |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not described |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | There were above 5% dropouts, and the trial did not use proper intention‐to‐treat analysis. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Both all‐cause mortality, and serious adverse events were reported. |
For‐profit bias | High risk | The trial was funded by Nutricia research, which might have a conflict of interest. |
Other bias | Low risk | The trial appeared to be free of other components that could put it at risk of bias. |