Chen 2014a.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Study time frame/recruitment period: March 2008 to December 2012 Follow‐up period: mean follow‐up days were 487 in open surgery group (control) and 522 in omental folding group (treatment)
Participants	Country: China Setting: single centre Aged 18 to 80 years; initiation of PD; presence of greater omentum below the abdominal incision (accessible through the incision) Number: treatment group (34); control group (33) Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (51 ± 13); control group (50 ± 14) Sex (M/F): treatment group (16/18); control group (17/16) Diabetes: treatment group (7/34); control group (7/33) Exclusion criteria: previous open abdominal surgery history; history of psychological illness or condition that interfered with the ability to understand or comply with requirements of the study
Interventions	Treatment group Open insertion of PD catheter with omentum folding (where a 2 cm incision was made in the peritoneum and the greater omentum was gently drawn out of the abdominal cavity. The distal corners of the greater omentum were fixed to the proximal (gastrocolic) parts of the omentum with three stitches of 2‐0 silk suture) Control group Regular open insertion of PD catheter
Outcomes	Catheter tip migration with drainage failure Irreversible catheter dysfunction All‐cause catheter failure: defined as necessary to remove or reposition the catheter by surgical methods First catheter‐related infections including peritonitis, exit‐site infection, and tunnel infection Technique survival: defined as time to permanent transfer to HD or kidney transplant
Notes	Additional data requested from authors: yes Funding source: " This work was supported in part by the Research Award Fund for Young Teachers in Central South University (2011QNZT165) to G.C. and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81070610) to F.L"
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
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	No dropouts
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All the outcomes are reported
Other bias	High risk	Assessment of presence of greater omentum was only possible during operation hence it is unclear randomisation was occurred after surgical incision was made