Lundell 2008.

Methods	Randomised clinical trial
Participants	Country: Europe Number randomised: 554 Post‐randomisation drop‐outs: not stated Revised sample size: 554 Average age: 45 years Females: 156 (28.2%) Barretts oesophagus: 60 (10.8%) Hiatus hernia: not stated Body mass index: not stated Inclusion criteria Adults aged 18–70 years with confirmed GORD, with or without Barret's oesophagus. History of chronic reflux oesophagitis (> 6 months) or chronic symptomatic GORD (> 6 months) with pathological 24‐h pH metry, according to local standards, and a requirement for long‐term acid suppressive therapy. All patients were required to have had pH monitoring and manometry within 12 months prior to randomization. All had to be considered suitable for both surgical treatment and for long‐term management with a PPI (esomeprazole). Capable of completing quality‐of‐life questionnaires. Exclusion criteria Primary need for surgery (e.g. for paraoesophageal hernia or failure of medical therapy to control symptoms adequately) was not eligible to be recruited. Required PPI treatment for diseases other than GORD. History of oesophageal, gastric, or duodenal surgery or who had other diseases that might have a negative impact on their subsequent treatment within the study.
Interventions	Participants were randomly assigned to two groups. Group 1: surgery (n = 288) Further details: Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication Group 2: medical treatment (n = 266) Further details: Esomeprezole 20 mg once daily increased to maximum of 40 mg once daily or 20 mg twice daily.
Outcomes	The outcomes reported were GORD‐specific quality of life, proportion with heartburn, reflux, dysphagia and adverse events.
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: This information was not available.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: This information was not available.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comment: Patients undergoing medical treatment did not have sham surgery.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comment: This information was not available.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: An intention‐to‐treat analysis was performed.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: Important outcomes were reported.
Other bias	High risk	Quote: "This study was funded by Astrazeneca, Mölndal, Sweden".