Kostamovaara 1996.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Study duration: not reported Study follow‐up: 2 POD
Participants	Country: Finland Setting: single centre Inclusion criteria: patients undergoing total hip (62) or knee (14) replacement Number: treatment group 1 (19); treatment group 2 (20); treatment group 3 (18) control group (19) Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group 1 (61 ± 10); treatment group 2 (58 ± 8); treatment group 3 (64 ± 5) control group (61 ± 7) Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (5/14); treatment group 2 (10/10); Treatment group 3 (15/3); control group (6/13) Exclusion criteria: hepatic, kidney or cardiac failure; bleeding or coagulation disorders; peptic ulcer; asthma; hypersensitivity to aspirin or other NSAIDs; on cytostatic treatment
Interventions	Treatment group 1 Ketoprofen: 50 mg IV loading dose for 30 min, followed 50 mg infusion over following 11.5 h Treatment group 2 Ketoprofen: 100 mg IV loading dose for 30 min, followed 100 mg infusion over following 11.5 h Treatment group 3 Ketoprofen: 150 mg IV loading dose for 30 min, followed 150 mg infusion over following 11.5 h Control group Isotonic saline: IV infusion for 30 min, followed by saline over following 11.5 h
Outcomes	Pre‐operative and day 2 SCr
Notes	Funding source: Grant awarded by the Professor Arno Hollmen Fund, Finland
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)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Three of 76 patients withdrawn from study; reasons for missing outcome data unlikely to be related to true outcome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	Low risk	Non‐profit organisation funding received