Chiew 2010.

Methods	Trial design: RCT Trial grouping: parallel Ethics and informed consent: not reported Follow‐up period: not reported Sample size estimate: not reported ITT analysis: yes; number randomised 109: number analysed:109 Funding: not reported
Participants	Country: Singapore Setting: orthopaedic ward Number: 109 (intervention group 54 participants); (control group: 55 participants) Inclusion criteria: people > 60 (mean age not reported by group), with traumatic hip fractures who had surgical intervention Exclusion criteria: not stated Pretreatment: most of the participants were female (71.6%), 76 years old and above (58.7%), and community ambulant (57.8%) prior to the hip fracture
Interventions	Intervention group: Sanyrene® solution and 2–3 hourly change of position. The topical agent was applied on the patient's sacrum, buttocks and heels at every change of position from day of admission Control group: 2–3 hourly change of position only
Outcomes	Primary outcome: PU incidence Outcome type: dichotomous outcome Reporting: fully reported Unit of measure: numbers Direction: lower is better Data value: endpoint Secondary outcomes: Stage of PUs Outcome type: dichotomous outcome Reporting: partially reported Unit of measure: numbers Direction: lower stage is better Data value: endpoint Location of PUs Outcome type: dichotomous outcome Reporting: partially reported Unit of measure: numbers Direction: none Data value: endpoint
Identification	Author's name: Chiew SF Institution: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore Email: not stated Address: not stated
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Although block randomisation was mentioned, the method of sequence generation was not (i.e. computer generated; random numbers list; toss of coin etc)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The method of allocation concealment was not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	The nature of the intervention would make blinding of participants and personnel impossible
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Reported the incidence of PUs for all those enrolled in the study
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Results were reported for all participants recruited
Other bias	Unclear risk	As the data have been extracted from an abstract it is unclear if there are any other sources of bias