Williams 1983.
Methods | Randomised clinical trial, UK | |
Participants | 14 hospitalised adults with squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus, at nutritional risk according to the trialist Exclusion criteria: unable to swallow their saliva at presentation |
|
Interventions | Experimental group: fine‐bore enteral feeding (2400 ml of Isocal/24 hrs. (n = 7) Each litre = 33 g protein, 42 g of fat, 125 g carbohydrate) for 6 weeks
Control group: no intervention (n = 7) Co‐interventions: standard ward diet |
|
Outcomes | Potassium, weight change | |
Study dates | Not stated | |
Notes | The trial found that very few of the experimental group had received the standard ward diet, because of the supplementary enteral feeding. The trial was terminated before it was finished, due to an increased effect of the experimental group. We contacted the authors by email:john.fenwick@ccotrust.nhs.uk. We received no reply. |
|
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 | High risk | Not blinded. Only the experimental group received tube‐feeding. |
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) | Unclear risk | No protocol could be obtained and the trial did not report serious adverse events or 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. |