Goode 1979.

Methods	RCT Setting: hospital and outpatients, UK
Participants	n = 20 (A) 10 (B) 10 13 men/7 women Age: 24 to 91 years Post surgical wounds, infected wounds left open for delayed closure, or closed wounds requiring opening and drainage following infection Inclusion criteria: patients at risk from wound infection, following abdominal surgery for appendicitis or bowel surgery; wounds heavily contaminated at surgery and left open for delayed primary closure; wounds closed at surgery but developed an abscess and required removal of sutures and wound drainage Exclusion criteria: none listed
Interventions	All patients were given antibiotic cover prior to surgery for 48 to 72 hours postoperatively Each wound was photographed at the start, during and at the end of the trial (A) Twice daily dressings of dextranomer granules covered with a light pack (B) Twice daily dressings of Eusol and paraffin‐soaked ribbon gauze All other wound procedures were identical for both groups Independent assessor decided when the wound was clean and could be closed by secondary suture
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: (1) Mean time to wound closure (SD not reported): (A) 8.1 days (B)11.6 days Statistical difference P < 0.05 (Mann‐Whitney U‐test) (2) Time to complete healing not reported Secondary outcomes: (1) Patient satisfaction: not reported (2) Rate of infection: not reported (3) Quality of life: not reported (4) Length of hospital stay (median): (A) 2.2 days less than group B (B) Not reported (5) Cost‐effectiveness: (A) Approximately £3.40 per day (B) Not reported (6) Adverse events: not reported
Notes	Trial did report that 1 patient in each group was left to heal by granulation but the time to healing was not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"...each patient was allocated to treatment with either Debrisan or Eusol by means of cards drawn from a sealed envelope" (p325). However, the method used for generating the randomisation sequence for the cards was not reported. Hence, it was judged to be unclear.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Although "sealed envelopes" are documented no further details are given.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Participants and personnel	Unclear risk	Participants ‐ blinding not stated but lack of blinding unlikely to influence results Personnel ‐ blinding not stated but unlikely to be achievable due to different properties (beads versus ribbon gauze). Lack of blinding unlikely to influence results.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Outcome assessors	Low risk	Outcome assessor ‐ blinded to treatment "an independent assessor decided when the wound was clean" using photographs of the wound (p325)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	20 patients studied, 20 patients "mean time to secondary wound closure reported" reported within table 1 (p325). One patient in each treatment group did not achieve wound secondary wound closure.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No study protocol available but expected outcomes reported "Efficacy of treatment assessed by time taken to allow secondary skin closure, by the condition of the wound after closure and the number of days in hospital" (p328) all reported on although limited details given for the later 2