Franken 1983.

Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial; 2‐arm study Study duration: not stated
Participants	Setting: not stated Location: not stated Health status: referred for reduction of ileocolic intussusception Number (treatment group/control group): 30 (15/15) Age: 3 years or younger Sex (M/F): not stated Exclusion criteria: suspicion of attending physician of peritonitis, clinical or radiographic evidence of peritonitis or intestinal perforation, radiographic evidence of small‐bowel obstruction, indication that intussusception had been present for over 48 hours, fever over 40° C, hypovolaemic shock, blood loss anaemia (haemoglobin < 80 g/L), contraindication to administration of glucagon (suspected pheochromocytoma, insulinoma, glucagon sensitivity, or uncontrolled diabetes)
Interventions	Treatment group Glucagon: 0.05 mg/kg with barium enema injected IV (over 1 minute) when intussusception was identified at fluoroscopy Control group Placebo: 0.05 mg/kg with barium enema injected IV when intussusception was identified at fluoroscopy
Outcomes	Reduction of intussusception by barium enema Failure of procedure at the end of the time limit, but ultimately successful hydrostatic reduction Failure of procedure, but intussusception reduced at surgery Failure of procedure, and intussusception un‐reduced at surgery
Notes	Procedure details: The enema consisted of barium sulphate suspension of approximately 20% w/v concentration, with the enema bag 1 metre above the table top. The enema could be repeated twice more if the initial attempt failed (i.e. lack of reduction within 5 minutes) Other details: Glucagon and placebo were supplied by the Eli Lilly Company
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"The injections were given in randomized, double‐blind fashion"; no further details supplied
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"The injections were given in randomized, double‐blind fashion"; no further details supplied
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing data (randomisation post exclusion)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Reporting included all outcomes and explained outcomes that were unexpected: "eight of 15 intussusceptions...were successfully reduced" ‐ "two patients in the study suffered complications of intussusception...before full recovery ensued"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"The injections were given in randomized, double‐blind fashion...Glucagon and the placebo were supplied in identical vials"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not specified who assessed outcomes