Study	Reason for exclusion
Lindschinger 2000	ALLOCATION: Patients were prospectively randomised to prophylactic PEG ‐ no detail given on allocation PARTICIPANTS: 47 participants with a diagnosis of cancer of the larynx and pharynx (26 received a prophylactic PEG and 21 were placed into the non‐PEG group). Gender and age of patients in this study was not detailed. INTERVENTIONS: 1. One arm of study prophylactic PEG 2. Other arm of study did not distinguish between oral and NG feeding
Salas 2009	ALLOCATION: Patients were prospectively randomised to prophylactic percutaneous gastrostomy ‐ allocation was achieved via a computer‐generated randomised list using a permuted block design PARTICIPANTS: 39 participants with a diagnosis of squamous cell head and neck cancer (21 received prophylactic percutaneous gastrostomy and 18 were placed in the non‐prophylactic percutaneous gastrostomy group). No differences in terms of clinical status or socio‐demographic features were found between the 2 groups. INTERVENTIONS: 1. One arm of study: prophylactic percutaneous gastrostomy 2. Other arm of study: 13 participants had a gastrostomy placed during study and remaining 5 participants did not have a gastrotomy placed during study
Silander 2012	ALLOCATION: Patients were prospectively randomised to prophylactic PEG ‐ allocation was achieved via a computer‐based randomisation algorithm PARTICIPANTS: 134 participants with a newly diagnosed untreated, pharyngeal or oral cancer, or malignant neck nodes with unknown primary of stage III or IV. 64 received prophylactic PEG and 70 were placed in the non‐prophylactic PEG group. No significant differences in patient characteristics were found between the study group and the control group. INTERVENTIONS: 1. One arm of study: prophylactic PEG 2. Other arm of study: participants were enterally fed via PEG and NG plus 19 participants did not use enteral feeding

NG: nasogastric tube 
 PEG: percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy