Perttunen 1999.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Study duration: not reported Study follow‐up: 2 POD
Participants	Country: Finland Setting: single centre 30 patients undergoing thoracoscopy Number: treatment group 1 (10); treatment group 2 (10); control group (10) Mean age, range (years): treatment group 1 (50.3, 26 to 70); treatment group 2 (40.6, 18 to 64); control group (45.0, 25 to 70) Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (5/5); treatment group 2 (6/4); control group (5/5) Exclusion criteria: > 75 years; cardiac, kidney or hepatic failure; history of GI bleeding or peptic ulceration; haemorrhagic diathesis and asthma; allergy to aspirin, NSAIDs or morphine; confusion, preoperative FEV1 < 60% of reference value; sleep apnoea
Interventions	Treatment group 1 Diclofenac: bolus of 17 mg 1 h before anaesthesia; followed by a 48 h continuous infusion at 1mg/kg/24 h Treatment group 2 Diclofenac: bolus of 10 mg 1 h before anaesthesia, followed by a 48 h continuous infusion at 1.2mg/kg/24 h Control group Equivalent placebo bolus and continuous infusion
Outcomes	Creatinine at baseline, 1 h, first POD and second POD Urine output measurement 0‐22 h and 22‐46 h
Notes	Funding Source: Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund and Helsinki University
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Study was described as randomised, method of randomisation was not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Envelopes were sealed and opened by nurse who was not involved in the study
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Envelopes were sealed and opened by recovery nurse who made up the infusions. This nurse was not involved in the study
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Assessors were blinded to allocation of infusions
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Study protocol matches outcomes presented
Other bias	Low risk	Non‐profit organisation funding received