Mukherjee 2006.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT
Participants	80 ASA 1‐2, age 20‐34, undergoing CS under spinal anaesthesia, with no antiemetic drugs within 24 hours.
Interventions	Intervention 1: sedative (Comparison 6) Propofol at 0.5 mg/kg/hr. N = 20. Intervention 2: sedative (Comparison 6) Propofol at 1.0 mg/kg/hr. N = 20. Intervention 3: sedative (Comparison 6) Propofol at 1.5 mg/kg/hr. N = 20. Comparison: placebo Continuous infusion of 10% intralipid. N = 20.
Outcomes	Intraoperative nausea, vomiting, retching, adverse events.
Notes	Setting: Calcutta National Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, India. Dates: not reported Funding source: not reported. Declaration of interest: not reported. Retching combined with vomiting, dosage groups combined to yield overall treatment effect. Drugs are in separate subgroups but then pooled in our analysis, so the placebo data are dealt with according to our methods (Unit of analysis issues).
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated randomisation chart.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Identical syringes prepared by uninvolved anaesthetist.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Double blinded manner".
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Outcomes assessed by anaesthetist unaware of allocation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No loss of participants.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	We did not assess the trial protocol.
Other bias	Low risk	No differences in baseline groups.