Page 2002.
Methods | Randomised clinical trial, UK | |
Participants | 40 hospitalised adults undergoing oesophageal resection for carcinoma, at nutritional risk due to major surgery Male:Female = 28:12 Mean age = 67.3 years |
|
Interventions | Experimental group: Isocaloric enteral feed (1048 kcal/l and 40 g protein/l)(n = 20) Control group: Standard intravenous fluids (5% glucose)(n = 20) |
|
Outcomes | Weight, BMI, haematological and serological parameters, days in hospital, duration of enteral feed, death, complications | |
Study dates | Not stated | |
Notes | We contacted the authors on 23rd June 2015 by email: richard.page@ccl‐tr.nwest.nhs.uk. We received no reply. | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial was described as being randomised, but it was unclear how the sequence was generated. |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | The trial used sealed envelopes. |
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 | Unclear risk | The number of participants with incomplete data was not reported. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | The trial reported serious adverse events and all‐cause mortality. |
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. |