Bowley 2006.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Participants	Participants: 44 participants (21 allocated to intervention group; 23 to control) Age: range 20 to 54 years (median 30 years) Demographics: 40 of 44 participants were male. Other demographics as well as injury patterns and severity were apparently equivalent at baseline between the two groups Unit of allocation: individual Number randomised: 44 Number completing: 15 survived; 29 died Setting: Johannesburg Hospital Trauma Unit, Dept of Surgery, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. Study recruited within the first seven months of 2002 Inclusion criteria: Participants were "assessed on arrival in the Emergency Room by a single investigator and enrolled in the study if they had penetrating torso injury requiring a laparotomy and had exhibited hypotension (< 90 mmHg) either pre‐hospital or on arrival and in whom there was considered to be significant blood loss" (p. 1075) Exclusion criteria: Participants aged < 18 years; participants with injuries > 6 hours old.
Interventions	Intervention (n = 21): the intervention group underwent cell salvage using a Cell Saver 4 machine (Haemonetics, Braintree, MA, USA) with transfusion of both autologous and allogeneic blood as required Control (n = 23): allogeneic blood transfusion at the discretion of the attending medical staff
Outcomes	Primary Exposure to allogeneic blood up to the first 24 hours postinjury Secondary Mortality (all cause and cause‐specific (e.g. multiorgan failure or exsanguination) Postoperative sepsis Costs
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation was by computer‐generated random number tables
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocation was concealed by means of envelopes which contained dedicated data collection sheets
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	It is not feasible to blind this intervention to personnel
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Insufficient information was available in the published paper to determine this. Contact with the primary investigator indicates no attempts at blinding outcome assessors to outcomes e.g. postoperative sepsis
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No data were missing from this study
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Contact with trial investigator has established that no trial protocol exists (Bowley 2006)
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources identified