Tendulkar 2017.

Methods	RCT, parallel design
Participants	Total number of randomized participants: 60 Inclusion criteria: scheduled for surgery under GA; normotensive; ASA status I or II; 20‐70 years of age; either sex Exclusion criteria: ≥ ASA status III; pregnant; severe left ventricular dysfunction; bronchial asthma or COPD; high risk for stroke; pre‐exisiting AF or high‐degree atroventricular block; pacemaker dependency Type of surgery: type of surgery not specified (we assumed non‐cardiac) Baseline characteristics Intervention group (esmolol) Age, mean (SD): 43.76 (± 13.33) years Gender, M/F: 19/11 Control group (standard care) Age, mean (SD): 39.86 (± 12.59) years Gender, M/F: 13/17 Country: India Setting: single centre; hospital
Interventions	Intervention group (esmolol) Randomized, n = 30; losses = 0; analysed, n = 30 (use of ITT analysis not reported) Details: injection of esmolol 1.5 mg/kg, slow IV bolus, given 2 min before extubation Control group (standard care) Randomized, n = 30; losses = 0; analysed, n = 30 Details: no study drugs were given
Outcomes	Outcomes measured/reported by study authors: haemodynamic parameters; bradycardia (HR < 60 bpm; treated with atropine); hypotension (SBP < 80 mmHg; treated with mephentermine); coughing response to extubation; sedation scores Outcomes relevant to the review: bradycardia (see notes below); hypotension
Notes	Funding/declarations of interest: not reported Study dates: July 2014‐August 2016 Notes: study included an additional group (dexmedetomidine), which we did not include in the review we could not be certain whether incidences of bradycardia were fully reported for the esmolol and standard care groups (data were available only for the dexmedetomidine group)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated randomization
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not specified
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Open‐label trial
Blinding of outcome assessors (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Open‐label trial
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No apparent losses
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Study authors did not report prospective clinical trial registration or publication of a protocol. It was not feasible to effectively assess risk of reporting bias
Other bias	Low risk	Not detected