Eljezi 2017.
Methods |
|
|
Participants |
|
|
Interventions | Treatment group 1
Treatment group 2
Treatment group 3
Control group
|
|
Outcomes |
|
|
Notes |
|
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Study was described as randomised, method of randomisation was not reported |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Allocation was concealed in an envelope |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | The study drug was prepared by an anaesthetist nurse not involved of post‐operative care, under the control of the anaesthetist in charge of the patient, who opened the allocation envelope |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to permit judgement |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | There is no incomplete data |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Methods state 4 hourly urinary output measurements until 48 h post‐operatively and SCr measurement for POD 1 and POD 2. No urinary output results documented for 0 – 44 h. SCr documented at baseline and a percentage rise at 48 h reported. No results for POD 1 reported |
Other bias | Low risk | The study was conducted by the Department of Anesthesiology (Medecine Peri‐Operatoire) and the Clinical Pharmacology centre (CPC‐CIC) of the University Hospital of Clermont‐Ferrand (CHU Clermont‐Ferrand), France. The sponsorship was limited to supplies and expenses. The sponsorship included payment for employees for study design, patient’s inclusion, data entry, and analysis of the data. They also provided the study drugs at no cost. They had no influence or interference after the protocol was designed |