Valdivieso 1987.

Methods	Randomised clinical trial, USA
Participants	65 hospitalised adults, previously untreated, with small cell bronchogenic carcinoma admitted for chemotherapy, at nutritional risk according to the trialist Male:Female = 40:18 Mean age = 59 years
Interventions	Experimental group: Intravenous hyperalimentation 500 ml 50% glucose, 500 ml 8.5% amino acid(n = 30) Control group: No intervention (n = 35) Co‐intervention: oral nutrition as wanted + chemotherapy
Outcomes	Myelosuppresive toxicity, infectious complications, weight, triceps skinfold, mid‐upper arm muscle circumference, days of hospitalisation, survival, remission
Study dates	Not stated
Notes	The same participants were randomised to prophylactic antibiotics or no prophylactic antibiotics. The 2 groups of antibiotics could be described as being similar in the 2 groups. We contacted the authors on 23rd June 2015 by email: manuelva@umich.edu. The author replied that he had left the research environment and could not provide further information.
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	Unclear risk	There were above 5% dropouts, and the trial did not use proper methodology to deal with those lost to follow‐up.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The trial reported mortality and serious adverse events.
For‐profit bias	Low risk	The trial was funded by a non‐profit organisation (National Cancer Institute).
Other bias	Low risk	The trial appeared to be free of other components that could put it at risk of bias.