Shao 2012.
Methods | Single‐centre RCT in China | |
Participants | 160 ASA I or II patients aged 18 to 60 years, scheduled for elective abdominal surgery Exclusions: abnormal temperature, systemic metabolic disease, infection, interruption of surgery for frozen section |
|
Interventions | A total of 32 intervention groups were described, each with 5 patients who had a unique combination of the following 5 interventions:
|
|
Outcomes | Nasopharyngeal and rectal temperature at end of surgery | |
Notes | Data provided for each of the 32 groups. We combined these to compare groups when the only difference was warmed intravenous fluids or surgical rinse | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not described |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not described |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | 'Double blind was carried out by having one researcher seal each envelope containing warming instructions and then have the envelope opened by a second researcher, with the operation and warming method conducted according to the instructions' |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not described |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | No loss to follow‐up |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | No evidence of this |
Other bias | Low risk | None |