Fox‐Geiman 2001.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised, comparative trial with 3 arms comparison of oral ondansetron + dexamethasone vs oral granisetron + dexamethasone vs intravenous ondansetron + dexamethasone Recruitment period: September 1997 to September 1998 102 patients randomised Masking: double‐blind Baseline patient characteristics: reported Follow‐up: n.r.
Participants	Inclusion criteria > 17 years old with malignant disease consumed < 5 alcoholic drinks per day in the past year scheduled to receive chemotherapy or chemotherapy preparative regimens estimated creatinine clearance ≥ 50 mL/min normal liver function, defined as total bilirubin < 1.5 × ULN and AST < 2 × ULN  Exclusion criteria: n.r. Mean age, years: 45 (oral ondansetron), 46 (oral granisetron), 49 (intravenous ondansetron) Gender: male + female Tumour/cancer type: n.r. Chemotherapy regimen: STAMP V, TBI/VP/CY, TANC, Bu/Cy, BEAM, BCNU/VP/CY, ICE, Carboplatin/VP, Carboplatin/MTZ/CY, MMT, Thiotepa/CY, TBI/CY Country: United States (single centre)
Interventions	Experimental: arm A: oral ondansetron ondansetron 8 mg p.o. (every 8 hours) + dexamethasone 10 mg i.v. (once daily) Experimental: arm B: oral granisetron granisetron 1 mg p.o. (every 12 hours each day) + dexamethasone 10 mg i.v. (once daily) Experimental: arm C: intravenous ondansetron ondansetron 32 mg i.v. (single daily dose) + dexamethasone 10 mg i.v. (once daily)
Outcomes	complete response (no or mild nausea and no rescue antiemetics used) over 8 days major response (1 episode of vomiting or, if no vomiting occurs, moderate nausea with rescue antiemetics allowed) minor response (2 to 4 episodes of vomiting, regardless of nausea or rescue antiemetic use) failure (> 4 episodes of vomiting, regardless of nausea or rescue antiemetic use)
Notes	no information regarding clinical trial registration "supported in part by an educational grant from Glaxo‐Wellcome, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC" study authors did not provide disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "the randomization scheme was determined by the study’s biostatistician based on a permuted block design (K = 6)"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "the treatment allocation scheme was maintained by the study pharmacist, who assumed responsibility for blinded drug distribution"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Blinding of participants	Low risk	Quote: "... double‐blind ..."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Blinding of personnel	Low risk	Quote: "... double‐blind ..."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes (Patient reported outcomes)	Low risk	Comment: both patients and personnel were blinded towards the intervention and thus had no influence on outcome assessment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Subjective outcomes (Patient reported outcomes)	Low risk	Quote: "... the trial was analysed according to intention to‐treat"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: all outcome measures were reported in the results section
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: no information to suggest other sources of bias