Eatock 2005.

Methods	Randomised, parallel‐group, open‐label, 2‐armed, active‐controlled trial Setting: Tertiary care hospital Trial duration: October 1997 to July 2000
Participants	Number randomised: 27 (NG), 23 (NJ) Number analysed: 27 (NG), 23 (NJ) Age: NG feed: 63 years (47 to 74), NJ feed: 58 years (48 to 64) Gender (M/F): NG feed: 14/13, NJ feed: 13/10 Inclusion criteria: Patients with severe acute pancreatitis Definition of pancreatitis: Abdominal pain and serum amylase >= 3 times the upper limit of reference range Scale of severity used: Glasgow score >= 3, APACHE II >= 6, CRP > 150 mg/L Exclusion criteria: Patients < 18 years of age Pregnant females
Interventions	Intervention: NG feed (N = 27), tube in stomach Control: NJ feed (N = 22), tube in proximal jejunum Feeding starts ‐ hours form onset of pain: 72 (NG), 72 (NJ) Interval to full rate of feed ‐ hours after feeding commenced: 36 (NG), 36 (NJ) Type of feed used: low‐fat semi‐elemental Method of insertion: bedside (NG), endoscopic (NJ) Confirmation of correct position: aspiration and pH measurement or X‐ ray (NG), endoscopy (NJ) Endoscopy treatment: ES (endoscopic sphincterotomy) in 7 NG and 9 NJ Surgical treatment: not reported Treatment supervised: yes
Outcomes	Outcomes sought and reported Mortality Success rate of the procedure ‐ tube placed in stomach (NG), tube placed in jejunum (NJ) Complications associated with the procedure Complication associated with the feeds Interval to full rate ‐ hours after feeding commenced Requirement for parenteral nutrition Exacerbation of pain (visual analogue score for pain) Length of hospital stay Outcomes sought but not reported Organ failure (single or multiple) Rate of infection (local or systemic) Surgical intervention Duration of tube feeding Duration of analgesic requirement after feeding tube placement Outcomes not sought but reported ICU stay Ventilatory support Tolerability of feeding Serial APACHE II score, CRP
Notes	Country: Scotland Funding source: Not reported Conflicts of interest: Not reported 1 randomised participant in NJ group was subsequent discovery of an incorrect diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. Feeding tube could not be passed into jejunum in 2 participants in the NJ group; they received NG feed but were analysed as ITT (NJ group).
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote from report, "Randomization was by computerized random number generation"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote from report, "... sequence was implemented using numbered containers." Comment: It is unclear from the report if the containers were opaque and sequentially numbered.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote from report, "... No blinding of participants or investigators was attempted." Comment: This was an open‐label study, but there were no differences in co‐interventions between groups.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes	Low risk	Although this was an open‐label study, objective outcomes were unlikely to have been affected by detection bias.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes (pain)	Unclear risk	This was an open‐label study, and the detection of pain using the VAS could potentially have been affected by knowledge of the intervention.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Outcome data were available for all participants, and analysis was by intention‐to‐treat.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The trial was not prospectively registered, and no study protocol was available, but the pre‐stated outcomes in the methods were reported.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Source of funding and conflicts of interest were not mentioned.