Shimony 2016.

Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial (2 arms) Study duration: not reported Study setting: hospital, single centre, Israel
Participants	Adults undergoing elective craniotomy for tumour resection (n = 100) Inclusion criteria ASA I to III adults undergoing above surgery Exclusion criteria Allergy to propofol, pregabalin, opioids, NSAIDS, dipyrone Chronic pain Psychiatric disorder Chronic usage of sedatives, antidepressants, antipsychotics or antiepileptic drugs Receiving anti‐emetic or anticonvulsant drugs Age < 18 or > 80 In military service Emergency surgery Pregnant Planning to undergo deep brain stimulation Inability to consent Severe liver or renal failure Those expected to require a prolonged hospital stay after surgery Mean age, range (years) 39 (18 to 60) Numbers allocated to each arm Group intervention (n = 50) Group control (n = 50) Male gender Group intervention: 42% (denominator not clear) Group control: 55% (denominator not clear)
Interventions	Technique and timing Pregablin, given orally, the evening before surgery, 90 minutes before surgery, 2 hours after surgery and every 12 hours thereafter for a total of 72 hours versus starch placebo given at the same time points Dosage 150 mg per dose
Outcomes	Primary Pain score day 0 to 3 after surgery as rated by numerical rating scale (NRS) (measured at days 0, 1, 2 and 3) Secondary Analgesic consumption day 0 to 3 after surgery Late pain scores (up to 3 months) Use of analgesics after hospital discharge Length of stay Patient satisfaction Anxiety levels Sleep quality Anti‐emetic usage
Notes	Funding None
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated randomization list
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	It was clear how participants were blinded. Quote: ''patients in the placebo group were given identical capsules containing 500 mg of starch at the same time points''.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	The trial was reported as 'double‐blinded' but it was not clear how investigations were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	12 participants were lost to follow‐up, 5 in the intervention group and 7 in the control group. The reasons were not clearly explained in the report with the CONSORT flowchart mentioning these as having (quote): ''dropped out''. However, the authors did perform an intention‐to‐treat analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcomes reported as specified
Other bias	Unclear risk	Massive number of comparisons were made with no statistical adjustment for multiple testing.