Peck 2004.

Methods	Randomised clinical trial, USA
Participants	32 hospitalised adults either between 18 and 50 and admitted within 24 hours of burn injury with at least 20% of total body surface area burns, or younger than 18 or older than 50 and with at least 10% total body surface area burns, at nutritional risk due to trauma Male:Female = 19:8 (analysed) Mean age = 46.5 years Exclusion criteria: Pre‐existing medical conditions that led to inanition and wasting (e.g. such as adult immunodeficiency syndrome, cancer), had high‐voltage electrical injuries, were admitted to the burn centre for treatment of an exfoliative skin disorder, or were treated with the volumetric diffusive respirator (VDR) for smoke inhalation injury because of the inability to obtain indirect calorimetry measurements on the VDR
Interventions	Experimental group: Early feeding through nasogastric tube group initiated within 24 hrs(n = 16) Control group: No intervention(n = 16) Co‐intervention: Nasogastric tube placement at admission. Normal oral feeding
Outcomes	REE/BEE, weight, transthyretin, transferrin, urine urea nitrogen, feeding complications, infections, number of antibiotic days, number of ventilator days, number of ICU days, length of acute days, mortality
Study dates	Not stated
Notes	We contacted the authors on 19th August 2015 by email: mpeck@unc.med.edu. 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)	Unclear risk	The trial used sealed envelopes but it was unclear if they were opaque.
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 trial reported 5 dropouts, but it was unclear from which group and the trial did not allow proper intention‐to‐treat methodology.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol could be obtained, and the trial did not properly report serious adverse events.
For‐profit bias	Low risk	The trial was funded by a non‐profit organisation (Sponsored by the North Carolina Jaycee Burn Center and General Clinical Research Center Program of the Division of Research Resources).
Other bias	Low risk	The trial appeared to be free of other components that could put it at risk of bias.