Koppert 2006.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Study duration: 2002 to 2003 Study follow‐up: 3 POD
Participants	Country: Germany Setting: single centre Inclusion criteria: elderly patients ≥ 85 years undergoing hip replacement or surgery of the femoral shaft Number: treatment group 1 (25); treatment group 2 (25); control group (25) Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (76.0 ± 8.0); treatment group 2 (76.7 ± 8.9); control group (76.7 ± 8.6) Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (9/16); treatment group 2 (14/11); control group (11/14) Exclusion criteria: angina or congestive heart failure; recent history of MI, coronary angioplasty, coronary arterial bypass, stroke or transient ischaemic attack; uncontrolled hypertension or uncontrolled DM; kidney disease; bleeding disorders; any disease that the investigator believed would pose a risk to the patient
Interventions	Treatment group 1 Parecoxib: 40 mg and 12 hourly subsequently Treatment group 2 IV paracetamol: infusion of 1000 mg and 6 hourly subsequently Control group IV saline: over 10 min
Outcomes	Differences in CrCl pre‐operatively and up to 6 h post‐operatively
Notes	Funding source: unknown quantity of support provided by Bristol‐Myers Squibb
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	All study medication solutions were prepared by a hospital pharmacist who was not involved in the data collection
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The anaesthesiologist, nursing staff, and the investigators were all blinded to the treatment. At the surgical ward, patients and nursing staff were unblinded to the medication.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Eight of 83 patients withdrew from study. Reasons for missing outcome data unlikely to be related to true outcome
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Study protocol matches outcomes presented
Other bias	High risk	A commercial funding source was used for this study