Dag 2011.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial Study conducted August 2007 to September 2009
Participants	199 participants: intervention (n = 99), control (n = 100) Elective open colorectal surgery Route of feeding: oral Mean age (range): 62 years (35‐85) (intervention group), 61 years (17‐89) (control group) Sex (M:F) 52:47 (intervention group), 61:39 (control group)
Interventions	Intervention group: oral feeding commenced approximately 12 hours after operation with a fluid diet; this was gradually increased to a solid diet as tolerated by the patient. Control group: fasted until passage of flatus or stool.
Outcomes	Wound infection, anastomotic leakage, pneumonia, mortality, LoS.
Notes	Country of study: Turkey
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation was performed according to a computer generated list immediately after surgery by an independent computer consultant.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Blinding of participants (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No reports of attempts to blind participants. Participants are unlikely to be adequately blinded with an intervention of this nature.
Blinding of personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No reports of attempts to blind personnel. Personnel are unlikely to be adequately blinded with an intervention of this nature.
Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias) ‐ wound infections	High risk	Blinding of outcome assessor not discussed. Outcome assessor unlikely to be adequately blinded with an intervention of this nature.
Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias) ‐ intraabdominal abscesses	Unclear risk	NA‐ not assessed
Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias) ‐ postoperative complications e.g. acute myocardial infarction, thrombosis or pneumonia	High risk	(Pneumonia, toxic hepatitis, sepsis, evisceration, cerebral infarct) Blinding of outcome assessor not discussed. Outcome assessor unlikely to be adequately blinded with an intervention of this nature.
Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias) ‐ anastomotic leakage/dehiscence	High risk	Blinding of outcome assessor not discussed. Outcome assessor unlikely to be adequately blinded with an intervention of this nature.
Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias) ‐ mortality	Low risk	Blinding of outcome assessor not discussed. Outcome assessor unlikely to affect this outcome.
Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias) ‐ adverse events (e.g. nausea, vomiting, abdominal distention, aspiration, tube blockage and any other adverse events	Unclear risk	NA‐ not assessed
Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias) ‐ length of hospital stay	High risk	Blinding of outcome assessor not discussed. Outcome assessor unlikely to be adequately blinded with an intervention of this nature.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Dropouts after randomisation not reported.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol available. All outcomes listed in methods were reported in the results.