Ravasco 2005a.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT. Parallel design with 3 arms. Duration: 42 days intervention plus 3 months follow‐up. Location: Portugal.
Participants	Inclusion criteria: adults with colorectal cancer undergoing radiotherapy. Exclusion criteria: renal disease or diabetes. Number randomised: 111 participants (intervention group 1, n = 37; intervention group 2, n = 37; control group, n = 37). Attrition: no participants lost to follow‐up. Gender split: 66 males and 45 females. Age: mean (SD) 58 (15) years. Nutritional status: at baseline 42/111 participants were 'malnourished' (identified by PG‐SGA); 15 in Intervention group 1, 14 in Group 2, 13 in Group 3).
Interventions	Intervention (intervention group 1): participants received dietary advice in the form of individualised dietary counselling to achieve calculated energy and protein requirements. Intervention (intervention group 2): particpants received ONS in the form of 2x 200 mL cans of nutritional supplement. Control group: participants received no dietary advice in the form ad libitum food intake.
Outcomes	Survival*, weight*, energy intake*, protein intake, symptom‐induced morbidity, QoL.
Publication details	Language: English. Funding: Nucleo Regional do Sul da Liga Portuguesa contra o Cancro‐Terry Fox Foundation. Publication status: peer‐reviewed journal.
Notes	Data will be used in 2 parts of the review dietary advice versus no advice and dietary advice versus nutritional supplements. Additional data and information obtained from authors.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated random numbers.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Clinical outcomes	Low risk	Blinding not described but assessment of mortality unlikely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Functional outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated and likely that some outcomes might be influenced by lack of blinding.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Nutritional outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated and likely that some outcomes might be influenced by lack of blinding.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not described and likely that researchers and participants were aware of group allocation as this was a nutritional intervention. It is possible that assessment of some outcomes was influenced by lack of blinding.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No blinding described and likely that lack of blinding might influence assessment of some outcomes.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No participants lost to follow‐up. Author confirmed that no deaths occurred in the 3‐month study.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol identified. All specified outcomes reported in text and figures but not in a format or sufficient detail to make them usable for meta‐analysis. Much of the data reported as medians (IQR). Additional data on mean change (SD) for weight, energy intake and QOL obtained from author.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Baseline variables not given, not sure if groups similar at baseline.