Quote: "We randomly assigned patients to undergo standard perioperative care (SPC) or ERAS protocol." "There were no baseline differences between the 2 study groups."

The authors just mentioned randomisation without providing detailed information about the randomisation process and allocation concealment method.

Quote: "A randomised trial on ERAS is difficult to perform because running SPC and ERAS protocol simultaneously carries the risk of mixing the elements. Hence, to avoid any unintentional biases, the investigators were excluded from the clinical management of the patients. Furthermore, we split the surgical, anaesthesiological, and nurse teams involved in the study, without the possibility of changes in the team's composition, and we enrolled the patients minimising the overlapping of the hospitalisation."

The intervention providers took measures to avoid deviations. In addition, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Quote: "We excluded from analysis 2 patients in the SPC group and 6 patients in the ERAS protocol group either because they withdrew the consent before receiving the allocated treatment or because we planned the surgery for the wrong week."

Data were available for nearly all participants randomised and results were not likely biased by missing data.

Quote: "The investigators were excluded from the clinical management of the patients."

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03347409). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Lack of information on randomisation.

Quote: "Consenting subjects were randomised into two groups before baseline assessment: intervention group (CHO‐P) and control group (CO). Randomization was done by a computer‐generated number randomisation which was prepared by an independent statistician. The allocation of randomised numbers was concealed in sealed envelopes by the study coordinator. The envelope was only opened after consent and before the baseline assessment." "There was no statistically significant difference among any baseline variables between groups."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

Quote: "All randomised RCT subjects were included in analysis on an intention‐to‐treat(ITT) basis. "

The interventions for the two groups were very clear. It is likely that no deviations from the intended intervention arose because of the experimental context. An appropriate analysis was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

The data were available for all participants randomised.

The length of stay reflected the decisions made by the intervention provider, where recording of the decisions does not involve any judgement, but where the decision itself can be influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03667755). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Blinding of outcome assessors.

Quote: "Simple randomisation was carried out (by a hospital staff member blinded to the study) using computer generated random allocation for the ERAS or CM group and concealed in a numbered, opaque envelope. Participants were then randomised (i.e. given an envelope) to either the ERAS or the CM arm during the preoperative visit." "Both groups were similar with respect to demographic data, including age, body mass index and CC index, as well as for surgery indication, histological type and FIGO stage."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. However, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Quote: "Eleven patients did not receive laparotomic cytoreductive surgery and were excluded from the study after randomisation: one experienced an episode of Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (before laparoscopy), four had unresectable tumours and six had initial stages of the disease and underwent minimally incisive surgery."

Data were reasonably complete. Eleven patients were excluded after randomisation because they were identified as ineligible.

The length of stay reflected the decisions made by the intervention provider, where recording of the decisions does not involve any judgement, but where the decision itself can be influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02172638). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "Computer‐generated random numbers and list of any factors for stratification. To reduce predictability of a random sequence, details of any planned restriction should be provided in a separate document that is unavailable to those who enroll participants or assign interventions."

Quote: "Data collectors are not involved in the clinical management of patients to ensure statistical validity and reliability." "The surgical technique is standardised for the treatment team, and patients' families are not blinded to the study." "Operating surgeons, attending physicians, nursing staff, and patients and families cannot be blinded in this study, as the procedures differ between groups; however, outcome assessors will not be blinded." "All surgeries are performed by the same team of surgeons, and patients are treated and nursed by the same treatment team during the pre‐operative period." "In the full analysis set, patients will be analysed as randomised according to the intentionto‐treat principle. The intention‐to‐treat principle implies that the analysis includes all randomised patients. The per protocol analysis set will include all patients without major protocol deviation. Deviations from the protocol will be assessed as major or minor, and patients with major deviations from the protocol will be excluded from the per protocol analysis."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial.

Quote: "In the full analysis set, patients will be analysed as randomised according to the intention‐to‐treat principle."

Data were reasonably complete.

The length of stay reflected the decisions made by the intervention provider, where recording of the decisions does not involve any judgement, but where the decision itself can be influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

Protocol registered in clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02687412; A protocol published in 2016: Cui L, Shi Y, Zhang GN (2016). Fast‐track surgery after gynaecological oncological surgery: study protocol for a prospective randomised controlled trial. Trials, 17:597.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

The allocation sequence was randomised using a random number table. However, no detailed information about allocation sequence concealing was reported.

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial.

Data were reasonably complete.

The length of stay reflected the decisions made by the intervention provider, where recording of the decisions does not involve any judgement, but where the decision itself can be influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

No pre‐registered protocol or a pre‐specified statistical analysis plan was found. However, the outcome measurements and analyses were clearly defined. There is no indication of selection of the reported analysis from among multiple analyses or selection of the cohort or subgroups for analysis and reporting on the basis of the results.

Lack of information on randomisation, blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors, and no pre‐registered protocol or statistical plan.

The allocation sequence was randomised using a random number table. However, no detailed information about allocation sequence concealment was reported.

Quote: "Advertisements were put out all over the department, which may cause deviations from the intended intervention."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. Participants from different groups lived in the same department. Due to the advertisements posted all over the department, there is evidence, or strong reason to believe, that the trial context led to failure in implementing the protocol interventions in the control group and instead led to the implementation of interventions not allowed by the protocol.

Data were reasonably complete.

The length of stay reflected the decisions made by the intervention providers, where recording of the decisions does not involve any judgement, but where the decision itself can be influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

No pre‐registered protocol or statistical analysis plan was found. However, the outcome measurements and analyses were clearly defined. There is no indication of selection of the reported analysis from among multiple analyses or selection of the cohort or subgroups for analysis and reporting on the basis of the results.

Failure in implementing the protocol interventions due to trial context, lack of information on randomisation, blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors, and no pre‐registered protocol or statistical plan.

Quote: "Patients were randomised (1:1) at the time of preoperative evaluation to receive either enhanced recovery after surgery or usual care using blocked randomisation with varying block sizes and sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes to mitigate selection bias."

The randomisation process was clearly described and conducted. However, significant difference on the presence of "other malignancy" was found.

Quote: "All patients were counselled about the potential risks and benefits of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol before being offered enrolment."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial.

Data were reasonably complete. Nine patients were excluded after randomisation because they were confirmed as ineligible.

The outcomes were according to the records of intervention providers, who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

The data were analysed in accordance with a prespecified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT01705288). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Baseline imbalances and blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "We randomly assigned patients to undergo standard perioperative care (SPC) or ERAS protocol." "There were no baseline differences between the 2 study groups."

The authors just mentioned randomisation without providing detailed information about the randomisation process and allocation concealment method.

Quote: "A randomised trial on ERAS is difficult to perform because running SPC and ERAS protocol simultaneously carries the risk of mixing the elements. Hence, to avoid any unintentional biases, the investigators were excluded from the clinical management of the patients. Furthermore, we split the surgical, anaesthesiological, and nurse teams involved in the study, without the possibility of changes in the team's composition, and we enrolled the patients minimising the overlapping of the hospitalisation."

The intervention providers took measures to avoid deviations. In addition, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Quote: "We excluded from analysis 2 patients in the SPC group and 6 patients in the ERAS protocol group either because they withdrew the consent before receiving the allocated treatment or because we planned the surgery for the wrong week."

Data were available for nearly all participants randomised and results were not likely biased by missing data.

Quote: "The investigators were excluded from the clinical management of the patients."

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03347409). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Lack of information on randomisation.

Quote: "Simple randomisation was carried out (by a hospital staff member blinded to the study) using computer generated random allocation for the ERAS or CM group and concealed in a numbered, opaque envelope. Participants were then randomised (i.e. given an envelope) to either the ERAS or the CM arm during the preoperative visit." "Both groups were similar with respect to demographic data, including age, body mass index and CC index, as well as for surgery indication, histological type and FIGO stage."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. However, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Quote: "Eleven patients did not receive laparotomic cytoreductive surgery and were excluded from the study after randomisation: one experienced an episode of Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (before laparoscopy), four had unresectable tumours and six had initial stages of the disease and underwent minimally incisive surgery."

Data were reasonably complete. Eleven patients were excluded after randomisation because they were identified as ineligible.

The outcomes were according to the records of intervention providers who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02172638). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

The participants, providers, and outcome assessors were not blinded to the intervention.

Quote: "Computer‐generated random numbers and list of any factors for stratification. To reduce predictability of a random sequence, details of any planned restriction should be provided in a separate document that is unavailable to those who enroll participants or assign interventions."

Quote: "Data collectors are not involved in the clinical management of patients to ensure statistical validity and reliability." "The surgical technique is standardised for the treatment team, and patients' families are not blinded to the study." "Operating surgeons, attending physicians, nursing staff, and patients and families cannot be blinded in this study, as the procedures differ between groups; however, outcome assessors will not be blinded." "All surgeries are performed by the same team of surgeons, and patients are treated and nursed by the same treatment team during the pre‐operative period." "In the full analysis set, patients will be analysed as randomised according to the intention‐to‐treat principle. The intention‐to‐treat principle implies that the analysis includes all randomised patients. The per protocol analysis set will include all patients without major protocol deviation. Deviations from the protocol will be assessed as major or minor, and patients with major deviations from the protocol will be excluded from the per protocol analysis."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial.

Quote: "In the full analysis set, patients will be analysed as randomised according to the intention‐to‐treat principle."

Data were reasonably complete.

The outcomes were according to the records of intervention providers, who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

Protocol registered in clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02687412; A protocol published in 2016: Cui L, Shi Y, Zhang GN (2016). Fast‐track surgery after gynaecological oncological surgery: study protocol for a prospective randomised controlled trial. Trials, 17:597.

The participants, providers, and outcome assessors were not blinded to the intervention.

The allocation sequence was randomised using a random number table. However, no detailed information about allocation sequence concealment was reported.

Quote: "Advertisements were put out all over the department, which may cause deviations from the intended intervention."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. Participants from different groups lived in the same department. Due to the advertisements posted all over the department, there is evidence, or strong reason to believe, that the trial context led to failure in implementing the protocol interventions in the control group and instead led to the implementation of interventions not allowed by the protocol.

Data were reasonably complete.

The outcomes were monitored by the surgical gynaecological team, who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

No pre‐registered protocol or statistical analysis plan was found. However, the outcome measurements and analyses were clearly defined. There is no indication of selection of the reported analysis from among multiple analyses or selection of the cohort or subgroups for analysis and reporting on the basis of the results.

Failure in implementing the protocol interventions due to trial context, lack of information on randomisation, blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors, and no pre‐registered protocol or statistical plan.

Quote: "Simple randomisation was carried out (by a hospital staff member blinded to the study) using computer generated random allocation for the ERAS or CM group and concealed in a numbered, opaque envelope. Participants were then randomised (i.e. given an envelope) to either the ERAS or the CM arm during the preoperative visit." "Both groups were similar with respect to demographic data, including age, body mass index and CC index, as well as for surgery indication, histological type and FIGO stage."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. However, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Quote: "Eleven patients did not receive laparotomic cytoreductive surgery and were excluded from the study after randomisation: one experienced an episode of Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (before laparoscopy), four had unresectable tumours and six had initial stages of the disease and underwent minimally incisive surgery."

Data were reasonably complete. Eleven patients were excluded after randomisation because they were identified as ineligible.

The outcomes were according to the records of intervention providers who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02172638). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "Patients were randomised (1:1) at the time of preoperative evaluation to receive either enhanced recovery after surgery or usual care using blocked randomisation with varying block sizes and sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes to mitigate selection bias."

The randomisation process was clearly described and conducted. However, significant difference on the presence of "other malignancy" was found.

Quote: "All patients were counselled about the potential risks and benefits of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol before being offered enrolment."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial.

Data were reasonably complete. Nine patients were excluded after randomisation because they were confirmed as ineligible.

The reports on nausea came directly from participants about how they feel. This is potentially influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

The data were analysed in accordance with a prespecified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT01705288). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Baseline imbalances and blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "We randomly assigned patients to undergo standard perioperative care (SPC) or ERAS protocol." "There were no baseline differences between the 2 study groups."

The authors just mentioned randomisation without providing detailed information about the randomisation process and allocation concealment method.

Quote: "A randomised trial on ERAS is difficult to perform because running SPC and ERAS protocol simultaneously carries the risk of mixing the elements. Hence, to avoid any unintentional biases, the investigators were excluded from the clinical management of the patients. Furthermore, we split the surgical, anaesthesiological, and nurse teams involved in the study, without the possibility of changes in the team's composition, and we enrolled the patients minimising the overlapping of the hospitalisation."

The intervention providers took measures to avoid deviations. In addition, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Quote: "We excluded from analysis 2 patients in the SPC group and 6 patients in the ERAS protocol group either because they withdrew the consent before receiving the allocated treatment or because we planned the surgery for the wrong week."

Data were available for nearly all participants randomised and results were not likely biased by missing data.

The reports on nausea came directly from participants about how they feel. This is potentially influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03347409). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Lack of information on randomisation, blinding of outcome assessors.

Quote: "Consenting subjects were randomised into two groups before baseline assessment: intervention group (CHO‐P) and control group (CO). Randomization was done by a computer‐generated number randomisation which was prepared by an independent statistician. The allocation of randomised numbers was concealed in sealed envelopes by the study coordinator. The envelope was only opened after consent and before the baseline assessment." "There was no statistically significant difference among any baseline variables between groups."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

Quote: "All randomised RCT subjects were included in analysis on an intention‐to‐treat(ITT) basis. "

The interventions for the two groups were very clear. It is likely that no deviations from the intended intervention arose because of the experimental context. An appropriate analysis was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

The data were available for all participants randomised.

The outcomes were monitored by the surgical gynaecological team who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03667755). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Blinding of outcome assessors.

Quote: "Computer‐generated random numbers and list of any factors for stratification. To reduce predictability of a random sequence, details of any planned restriction should be provided in a separate document that is unavailable to those who enroll participants or assign interventions."

Quote: "Data collectors are not involved in the clinical management of patients to ensure statistical validity and reliability." "The surgical technique is standardised for the treatment team, and patients' families are not blinded to the study." "Operating surgeons, attending physicians, nursing staff, and patients and families cannot be blinded in this study, as the procedures differ between groups; however, outcome assessors will not be blinded." "All surgeries are performed by the same team of surgeons, and patients are treated and nursed by the same treatment team during the pre‐operative period." "In the full analysis set, patients will be analysed as randomised according to the intention‐to‐treat principle. The intention‐to‐treat principle implies that the analysis includes all randomised patients. The per protocol analysis set will include all patients without major protocol deviation. Deviations from the protocol will be assessed as major or minor, and patients with major deviations from the protocol will be excluded from the per protocol analysis."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial.

In the full analysis set, patients will be analysed as randomised according to the intention‐to‐treat principle."

Data were reasonably complete.

The reports on nausea came directly from participants about how they feel. This is potentially influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

Protocol registered in clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02687412; A protocol published in 2016: Cui L, Shi Y, Zhang GN (2016). Fast‐track surgery after gynaecological oncological surgery: study protocol for a prospective randomised controlled trial. Trials, 17:597.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

The allocation sequence was randomised using a random number table. However, no detailed information about allocation sequence concealing was reported.

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial.

Data were reasonably complete.

The reports on nausea came directly from participants about how they feel. This is potentially influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

No pre‐registered protocol or a pre‐specified statistical analysis plan was found. However, the outcome measurements and analyses were clearly defined. There is no indication of selection of the reported analysis from among multiple analyses or selection of the cohort or subgroups for analysis and reporting on the basis of the results.

Lack of information on randomisation, blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors, and no pre‐registered protocol for statistical plan.

The allocation sequence was randomised using a random number table. However, no detailed information about allocation sequence concealment was reported.

Quote: "Advertisements were put out all over the department, which may cause deviations from the intended intervention."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. Participants from different groups lived in the same department. Due to the advertisements posted all over the department, there is evidence, or strong reason to believe, that the trial context led to failure in implementing the protocol interventions in the control group and instead led to the implementation of interventions not allowed by the protocol.

Data were reasonably complete.

The reports on nausea were coming directly from participants about how they feel. This is potentially influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

No pre‐registered protocol or statistical analysis plan was found. However, the outcome measurements and analyses were clearly defined. There is no indication of selection of the reported analysis from among multiple analyses or selection of the cohort or subgroups for analysis and reporting on the basis of the results.

Lack of information on randomisation, blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors, failure in implementing the protocol interventions due to trial context, and no pre‐registered protocol or statistical plan.

The allocation sequence was randomised using a random number table. However, no detailed information about allocation sequence concealment was reported.

Quote: "Advertisements were put out all over the department, which may cause deviations from the intended intervention."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. Participants from different groups lived in the same department. Due to the advertisements posted all over the department, there is evidence, or strong reason to believe, that the trial context led to failure in implementing the protocol interventions in the control group and instead led to the implementation of interventions not allowed by the protocol.

Data were reasonably complete.

The outcomes were monitored by the surgical gynaecological team, who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

No pre‐registered protocol or statistical analysis plan was found. However, the outcome measurements and analyses were clearly defined. There is no indication of selection of the reported analysis from among multiple analyses or selection of the cohort or subgroups for analysis and reporting on the basis of the results.

Lack of information on randomisation, blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors, failure in implementing the protocol interventions due to trial context, and no pre‐registered protocol or statistical plan.

Quote: "Patients were randomised (1:1) at the time of preoperative evaluation to receive either enhanced recovery after surgery or usual care using blocked randomisation with varying block sizes and sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes to mitigate selection bias."

The randomisation process was clearly described and conducted. However, significant difference on the presence of "other malignancy" was found.

Quote: "All patients were counselled about the potential risks and benefits of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol before being offered enrolment."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial.

Data were reasonably complete. Nine patients were excluded after randomisation because they were confirmed as ineligible.

The outcomes were according to the records of intervention providers, who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

The data were analysed in accordance with a prespecified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT01705288). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Baseline imbalances and blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "Simple randomisation was carried out (by a hospital staff member blinded to the study) using computer generated random allocation for the ERAS or CM group and concealed in a numbered, opaque envelope. Participants were then randomised (i.e. given an envelope) to either the ERAS or the CM arm during the preoperative visit." "Both groups were similar with respect to demographic data, including age, body mass index and CC index, as well as for surgery indication, histological type and FIGO stage."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. However, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Data were reasonably complete. Eleven patients were excluded after randomisation because they were identified as ineligible.

The outcomes were according to the records of intervention providers who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02172638). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "Computer‐generated random numbers and list of any factors for stratification. To reduce predictability of a random sequence, details of any planned restriction should be provided in a separate document that is unavailable to those who enroll participants or assign interventions."

Quote: "Data collectors are not involved in the clinical management of patients to ensure statistical validity and reliability." "The surgical technique is standardised for the treatment team, and patients' families are not blinded to the study." "Operating surgeons, attending physicians, nursing staff, and patients and families cannot be blinded in this study, as the procedures differ between groups; however, outcome assessors will not be blinded." "All surgeries are performed by the same team of surgeons, and patients are treated and nursed by the same treatment team during the pre‐operative period." "In the full analysis set, patients will be analysed as randomised according to the intention‐to‐treat principle. The intention‐to‐treat principle implies that the analysis includes all randomised patients. The per protocol analysis set will include all patients without major protocol deviation. Deviations from the protocol will be assessed as major or minor, and patients with major deviations from the protocol will be excluded from the per protocol analysis."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial.

Data were reasonably complete.

The outcomes were according to the records of intervention providers, who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

Protocol registered in clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02687412; A protocol published in 2016: Cui L, Shi Y, Zhang GN (2016). Fast‐track surgery after gynaecological oncological surgery: study protocol for a prospective randomised controlled trial. Trials, 17:597.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "Consenting subjects were randomised into two groups before baseline assessment: intervention group (CHO‐P) and control group (CO). Randomization was done by a computer‐generated number randomisation which was prepared by an independent statistician. The allocation of randomised numbers was concealed in sealed envelopes by the study coordinator. The envelope was only opened after consent and before the baseline assessment." "There was no statistically significant difference among any baseline variables between groups."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

Quote: "All randomised RCT subjects were included in analysis on an intention‐to‐treat(ITT) basis. "

The interventions for the two groups were very clear. It is likely that no deviations from the intended intervention arose because of the experimental context. An appropriate analysis was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

The data were available for all participants randomised.

The outcomes were monitored by the surgical gynaecological team who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03667755). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Blinding of outcome assessors.

Quote: "Simple randomisation was carried out (by a hospital staff member blinded to the study) using computer generated random allocation for the ERAS or CM group and concealed in a numbered, opaque envelope. Participants were then randomised (i.e. given an envelope) to either the ERAS or the CM arm during the preoperative visit." "Both groups were similar with respect to demographic data, including age, body mass index and CC index, as well as for surgery indication, histological type and FIGO stage."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. However, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Data were reasonably complete. Eleven patients were excluded after randomisation because they were identified as ineligible.

The outcomes were according to the records of intervention providers who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02172638). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "Computer‐generated random numbers and list of any factors for stratification. To reduce predictability of a random sequence, details of any planned restriction should be provided in a separate document that is unavailable to those who enroll participants or assign interventions."

Quote: "Data collectors are not involved in the clinical management of patients to ensure statistical validity and reliability." "The surgical technique is standardised for the treatment team, and patients' families are not blinded to the study." "Operating surgeons, attending physicians, nursing staff, and patients and families cannot be blinded in this study, as the procedures differ between groups; however, outcome assessors will not be blinded." "All surgeries are performed by the same team of surgeons, and patients are treated and nursed by the same treatment team during the pre‐operative period." "In the full analysis set, patients will be analysed as randomised according to the intention‐to‐treat principle. The intention‐to‐treat principle implies that the analysis includes all randomised patients. The per protocol analysis set will include all patients without major protocol deviation. Deviations from the protocol will be assessed as major or minor, and patients with major deviations from the protocol will be excluded from the per protocol analysis."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial.

Data were reasonably complete.

The outcomes were according to the records of intervention providers, who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

Protocol registered in clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02687412; A protocol published in 2016: Cui L, Shi Y, Zhang GN (2016). Fast‐track surgery after gynaecological oncological surgery: study protocol for a prospective randomised controlled trial. Trials, 17:597.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "Simple randomisation was carried out (by a hospital staff member blinded to the study) using computer generated random allocation for the ERAS or CM group and concealed in a numbered, opaque envelope. Participants were then randomised (i.e. given an envelope) to either the ERAS or the CM arm during the preoperative visit." "Both groups were similar with respect to demographic data, including age, body mass index and CC index, as well as for surgery indication, histological type and FIGO stage."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. However, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Data were reasonably complete. Eleven patients were excluded after randomisation because they were identified as ineligible.

The outcomes were according to the records of intervention providers who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02172638). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "Simple randomisation was carried out (by a hospital staff member blinded to the study) using computer generated random allocation for the ERAS or CM group and concealed in a numbered, opaque envelope. Participants were then randomised (i.e. given an envelope) to either the ERAS or the CM arm during the preoperative visit." "Both groups were similar with respect to demographic data, including age, body mass index and CC index, as well as for surgery indication, histological type and FIGO stage."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. However, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Data were reasonably complete. Eleven patients were excluded after randomisation because they were identified as ineligible.

The outcomes were according to the records of intervention providers who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02172638). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "Computer‐generated random numbers and list of any factors for stratification. To reduce predictability of a random sequence, details of any planned restriction should be provided in a separate document that is unavailable to those who enroll participants or assign interventions."

Quote: "Data collectors are not involved in the clinical management of patients to ensure statistical validity and reliability." "The surgical technique is standardised for the treatment team, and patients' families are not blinded to the study." "Operating surgeons, attending physicians, nursing staff, and patients and families cannot be blinded in this study, as the procedures differ between groups; however, outcome assessors will not be blinded." "All surgeries are performed by the same team of surgeons, and patients are treated and nursed by the same treatment team during the pre‐operative period." "In the full analysis set, patients will be analysed as randomised according to the intention‐to‐treat principle. The intention‐to‐treat principle implies that the analysis includes all randomised patients. The per protocol analysis set will include all patients without major protocol deviation. Deviations from the protocol will be assessed as major or minor, and patients with major deviations from the protocol will be excluded from the per protocol analysis."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial.

Data were reasonably complete.

The outcomes were according to the records of intervention providers, who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

Protocol registered in clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02687412; A protocol published in 2016: Cui L, Shi Y, Zhang GN (2016). Fast‐track surgery after gynaecological oncological surgery: study protocol for a prospective randomised controlled trial. Trials, 17:597.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "We randomly assigned patients to undergo standard perioperative care (SPC) or ERAS protocol." "There were no baseline differences between the 2 study groups."

The authors just mentioned randomisation without providing detailed information about the randomisation process and allocation concealment method.

Quote: "A randomised trial on ERAS is difficult to perform because running SPC and ERAS protocol simultaneously carries the risk of mixing the elements. Hence, to avoid any unintentional biases, the investigators were excluded from the clinical management of the patients. Furthermore, we split the surgical, anaesthesiological, and nurse teams involved in the study, without the possibility of changes in the team's composition, and we enrolled the patients minimising the overlapping of the hospitalisation."

The intervention providers took measures to avoid deviations. In addition, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Quote: "We excluded from analysis 2 patients in the SPC group and 6 patients in the ERAS protocol group either because they withdrew the consent before receiving the allocated treatment or because we planned the surgery for the wrong week."

Data were available for nearly all participants randomised and results were not likely biased by missing data.

Quote: "The investigators were excluded from the clinical management of the patients."

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03347409). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Lack of information on randomisation.

Quote: "Consenting subjects were randomised into two groups before baseline assessment: intervention group (CHO‐P) and control group (CO). Randomization was done by a computer‐generated number randomisation which was prepared by an independent statistician. The allocation of randomised numbers was concealed in sealed envelopes by the study coordinator. The envelope was only opened after consent and before the baseline assessment." "There was no statistically significant difference among any baseline variables between groups."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

Quote: "All randomised RCT subjects were included in analysis on an intention‐to‐treat (ITT) basis. "

The interventions for the two groups were very clear. It is likely that no deviations from the intended intervention arose because of the experimental context. An appropriate analysis was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

The data were available for all participants randomised.

The outcomes were monitored by the surgical gynaecological team who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03667755). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Blinding of outcome assessors.

Quote: "Simple randomisation was carried out (by a hospital staff member blinded to the study) using computer generated random allocation for the ERAS or CM group and concealed in a numbered, opaque envelope. Participants were then randomised (i.e. given an envelope) to either the ERAS or the CM arm during the preoperative visit." "Both groups were similar with respect to demographic data, including age, body mass index and CC index, as well as for surgery indication, histological type and FIGO stage."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. However, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Data were reasonably complete. Eleven patients were excluded after randomisation because they were identified as ineligible.

The outcomes were according to the records of intervention providers who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02172638). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "Computer‐generated random numbers and list of any factors for stratification. To reduce predictability of a random sequence, details of any planned restriction should be provided in a separate document that is unavailable to those who enroll participants or assign interventions."

Quote: "Data collectors are not involved in the clinical management of patients to ensure statistical validity and reliability." "The surgical technique is standardised for the treatment team, and patients' families are not blinded to the study." "Operating surgeons, attending physicians, nursing staff, and patients and families cannot be blinded in this study, as the procedures differ between groups; however, outcome assessors will not be blinded." "All surgeries are performed by the same team of surgeons, and patients are treated and nursed by the same treatment team during the pre‐operative period." "In the full analysis set, patients will be analysed as randomised according to the intention‐to‐treat principle. The intention‐to‐treat principle implies that the analysis includes all randomised patients. The per protocol analysis set will include all patients without major protocol deviation. Deviations from the protocol will be assessed as major or minor, and patients with major deviations from the protocol will be excluded from the per protocol analysis."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial.

Data were reasonably complete.

The outcomes were according to the records of intervention providers, who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

Protocol registered in clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02687412; A protocol published in 2016: Cui L, Shi Y, Zhang GN (2016). Fast‐track surgery after gynaecological oncological surgery: study protocol for a prospective randomised controlled trial. Trials, 17:597.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "Simple randomisation was carried out (by a hospital staff member blinded to the study) using computer generated random allocation for the ERAS or CM group and concealed in a numbered, opaque envelope. Participants were then randomised (i.e. given an envelope) to either the ERAS or the CM arm during the preoperative visit." "Both groups were similar with respect to demographic data, including age, body mass index and CC index, as well as for surgery indication, histological type and FIGO stage."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. However, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Data were reasonably complete. Eleven patients were excluded after randomisation because they were identified as ineligible.

The outcomes were according to the records of intervention providers who were not blinded and might involve some judgement on clinical definitions.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02172638). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "Simple randomisation was carried out (by a hospital staff member blinded to the study) using computer generated random allocation for the ERAS or CM group and concealed in a numbered, opaque envelope. Participants were then randomised (i.e. given an envelope) to either the ERAS or the CM arm during the preoperative visit." "Both groups were similar with respect to demographic data, including age, body mass index and CC index, as well as for surgery indication, histological type and FIGO stage."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. However, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Data were reasonably complete. Eleven patients were excluded after randomisation because they were identified as ineligible.

The survival outcomes were obtained directly from patients and do not involve any judgement.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02172638). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Blinding of participants and providers.

Quote: "We randomly assigned patients to undergo standard perioperative care (SPC) or ERAS protocol." "There were no baseline differences between the 2 study groups."

The authors just mentioned randomisation without providing detailed information about the randomisation process and allocation concealment method.

Quote: "A randomised trial on ERAS is difficult to perform because running SPC and ERAS protocol simultaneously carries the risk of mixing the elements. Hence, to avoid any unintentional biases, the investigators were excluded from the clinical management of the patients. Furthermore, we split the surgical, anaesthesiological, and nurse teams involved in the study, without the possibility of changes in the team's composition, and we enrolled the patients minimising the overlapping of the hospitalisation."

The intervention providers took measures to avoid deviations. In addition, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Data were available for nearly all participants randomised and results were not likely biased by missing data.

Quote: "The investigators were excluded from the clinical management of the patients."

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03347409). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Lack of information on randomisation.

Quote: "Consenting subjects were randomised into two groups before baseline assessment: intervention group (CHO‐P) and control group (CO). Randomization was done by a computer‐generated number randomisation which was prepared by an independent statistician. The allocation of randomised numbers was concealed in sealed envelopes by the study coordinator. The envelope was only opened after consent and before the baseline assessment." "There was no statistically significant difference among any baseline variables between groups."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

Quote: "All randomised RCT subjects were included in analysis on an intention‐to‐treat(ITT) basis. "

The interventions for the two groups were very clear. It is likely that no deviations from the intended intervention arose because of the experimental context. An appropriate analysis was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

The data were available for all participants randomised.

The readmission reflected the decisions made by the intervention provider, where recording of the decisions does not involve any judgement, but where the decision itself can be influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03667755). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Blinding of outcome assessors.

Quote: "Simple randomisation was carried out (by a hospital staff member blinded to the study) using computer generated random allocation for the ERAS or CM group and concealed in a numbered, opaque envelope. Participants were then randomised (i.e. given an envelope) to either the ERAS or the CM arm during the preoperative visit." "Both groups were similar with respect to demographic data, including age, body mass index and CC index, as well as for surgery indication, histological type and FIGO stage."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. However, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Data were reasonably complete. Eleven patients were excluded after randomisation because they were identified as ineligible.

The readmission reflected the decisions made by the intervention provider, where recording of the decisions does not involve any judgement, but where the decision itself can be influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02172638). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

Quote: "Consenting subjects were randomised into two groups before baseline assessment: intervention group (CHO‐P) and control group (CO). Randomization was done by a computer‐generated number randomisation which was prepared by an independent statistician. The allocation of randomised numbers was concealed in sealed envelopes by the study coordinator. The envelope was only opened after consent and before the baseline assessment." "There was no statistically significant difference among any baseline variables between groups."

The allocation sequence was random and concealed until participants were enrolled and assigned to interventions. The baseline differences between intervention and control groups did not suggest a problem with the randomisation process.

Quote: "All randomised RCT subjects were included in analysis on an intention‐to‐treat(ITT) basis. "

The interventions for the two groups were very clear. It is likely that no deviations from the intended intervention arose because of the experimental context. An appropriate analysis was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

The data were available for all participants randomised.

The outcomes on bowel function were obtained from patients directly and do not involve any judgement.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03667755). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Low risk of bias in all domains.

Quote: "We randomly assigned patients to undergo standard perioperative care (SPC) or ERAS protocol." "There were no baseline differences between the 2 study groups."

The authors just mentioned randomisation without providing detailed information about the randomisation process and allocation concealment method.

Quote: "A randomised trial on ERAS is difficult to perform because running SPC and ERAS protocol simultaneously carries the risk of mixing the elements. Hence, to avoid any unintentional biases, the investigators were excluded from the clinical management of the patients. Furthermore, we split the surgical, anaesthesiological, and nurse teams involved in the study, without the possibility of changes in the team's composition, and we enrolled the patients minimising the overlapping of the hospitalisation."

The intervention providers took measures to avoid deviations. In addition, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Quote: "We excluded from analysis 2 patients in the SPC group and 6 patients in the ERAS protocol group either because they withdrew the consent before receiving the allocated treatment or because we planned the surgery for the wrong week."

Data were available for nearly all participants randomised and results were not likely biased by missing data.

The outcomes on bowel function were obtained from patients directly and do not involve any judgement.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03347409). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Lack of information on randomisation.

The allocation sequence was randomised using a random number table. However, no detailed information about allocation sequence concealing was reported.

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial.

Data were reasonably complete.

The outcomes on bowel function were obtained from patients directly and do not involve any judgement.

No pre‐registered protocol or a pre‐specified statistical analysis plan was found. However, the outcome measurements and analyses were clearly defined. There is no indication of selection of the reported analysis from among multiple analyses or selection of the cohort or subgroups for analysis and reporting on the basis of the results.

Lack of information on randomisation, blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors, and no pre‐registered protocol for statistical plan.

The allocation sequence was randomised using a random number table. However, no detailed information about allocation sequence concealment was reported.

Quote: "Advertisements were put out all over the department, which may cause deviations from the intended intervention."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. Participants from different groups lived in the same department. Due to the advertisements posted all over the department, there is evidence, or strong reason to believe, that the trial context led to failure in implementing the protocol interventions in the control group and instead led to the implementation of interventions not allowed by the protocol.

Data were reasonably complete.

The outcomes on bowel function were obtained from patients directly and do not involve any judgement.

No pre‐registered protocol or statistical analysis plan was found. However, the outcome measurements and analyses were clearly defined. There is no indication of selection of the reported analysis from among multiple analyses or selection of the cohort or subgroups for analysis and reporting on the basis of the results.

Lack of information on randomisation, blinding of participants and providers, failure in implementing the protocol interventions due to trial context, and no pre‐registered protocol or statistical plan.

Quote: "We randomly assigned patients to undergo standard perioperative care (SPC) or ERAS protocol." "There were no baseline differences between the 2 study groups."

The authors just mentioned randomisation without providing detailed information about the randomisation process and allocation concealment method.

Quote: "A randomised trial on ERAS is difficult to perform because running SPC and ERAS protocol simultaneously carries the risk of mixing the elements. Hence, to avoid any unintentional biases, the investigators were excluded from the clinical management of the patients. Furthermore, we split the surgical, anaesthesiological, and nurse teams involved in the study, without the possibility of changes in the team's composition, and we enrolled the patients minimising the overlapping of the hospitalisation."

The intervention providers took measures to avoid deviations. In addition, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Quote: "We excluded from analysis 2 patients in the SPC group and 6 patients in the ERAS protocol group either because they withdrew the consent before receiving the allocated treatment or because we planned the surgery for the wrong week."

Data were available for nearly all participants randomised and results were not likely biased by missing data.

The outcomes on bowel function were obtained from patients directly and do not involve any judgement.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03347409). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Lack of information on randomisation.

The allocation sequence was randomised using a random number table. However, no detailed information about allocation sequence concealment was reported.

Quote: "Advertisements were put out all over the department, which may cause deviations from the intended intervention."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. Participants from different groups lived in the same department. Due to the advertisements posted all over the department, there is evidence, or strong reason to believe, that the trial context led to failure in implementing the protocol interventions in the control group and instead led to the implementation of interventions not allowed by the protocol.

Data were reasonably complete.

The outcomes on bowel function were obtained from patients directly and do not involve any judgement.

No pre‐registered protocol or statistical analysis plan was found. However, the outcome measurements and analyses were clearly defined. There is no indication of selection of the reported analysis from among multiple analyses or selection of the cohort or subgroups for analysis and reporting on the basis of the results.

Lack of information on randomisation, blinding of participants and providers, failure in implementing the protocol interventions due to trial context, and no pre‐registered protocol or statistical plan.

Quote: "We randomly assigned patients to undergo standard perioperative care (SPC) or ERAS protocol." "There were no baseline differences between the 2 study groups."

The authors just mentioned randomisation without providing detailed information about the randomisation process and allocation concealment method.

Quote: "A randomised trial on ERAS is difficult to perform because running SPC and ERAS protocol simultaneously carries the risk of mixing the elements. Hence, to avoid any unintentional biases, the investigators were excluded from the clinical management of the patients. Furthermore, we split the surgical, anaesthesiological, and nurse teams involved in the study, without the possibility of changes in the team's composition, and we enrolled the patients minimising the overlapping of the hospitalisation."

The intervention providers took measures to avoid deviations. In addition, an appropriate analysis (intention‐to‐treat analysis) was used to estimate the effect of assignment to intervention.

Quote: "We excluded from analysis 2 patients in the SPC group and 6 patients in the ERAS protocol group either because they withdrew the consent before receiving the allocated treatment or because we planned the surgery for the wrong week."

Data were available for nearly all participants randomised and results were not likely biased by missing data.

The reports on satisfaction came directly from participants about how they feel. This is potentially influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

The data were analysed in accordance with a pre‐specified analysis plan (clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03347409). The results were unlikely to have been selected from multiple eligible outcome measurements or multiple eligible analyses of the data.

Lack of information on randomisation and blinding of outcome assessors.

The allocation sequence was randomised using a random number table. However, no detailed information about allocation sequence concealment was reported.

Quote: "Advertisements were put out all over the department, which may cause deviations from the intended intervention."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. Participants from different groups lived in the same department. Due to the advertisements posted all over the department, there is evidence, or strong reason to believe, that the trial context led to failure in implementing the protocol interventions in the control group and instead led to the implementation of interventions not allowed by the protocol.

Data were reasonably complete.

The reports on satisfaction were coming directly from participants about how they feel. This is potentially influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

No pre‐registered protocol or statistical analysis plan was found. However, the outcome measurements and analyses were clearly defined. There is no indication of selection of the reported analysis from among multiple analyses or selection of the cohort or subgroups for analysis and reporting on the basis of the results.

Lack of information on randomisation, blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors, failure in implementing the protocol interventions due to trial context, and no pre‐registered protocol or statistical plan.

Quote: "Computer‐generated random numbers and list of any factors for stratification. To reduce predictability of a random sequence, details of any planned restriction should be provided in a separate document that is unavailable to those who enroll participants or assign interventions."

Quote: "Data collectors are not involved in the clinical management of patients to ensure statistical validity and reliability." "The surgical technique is standardised for the treatment team, and patients' families are not blinded to the study." "Operating surgeons, attending physicians, nursing staff, and patients and families cannot be blinded in this study, as the procedures differ between groups; however, outcome assessors will not be blinded." "All surgeries are performed by the same team of surgeons, and patients are treated and nursed by the same treatment team during the pre‐operative period." "In the full analysis set, patients will be analysed as randomised according to the intention‐to‐treat principle. The intention‐to‐treat principle implies that the analysis includes all randomised patients. The per protocol analysis set will include all patients without major protocol deviation. Deviations from the protocol will be assessed as major or minor, and patients with major deviations from the protocol will be excluded from the per protocol analysis."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial.

Quote: "In the full analysis set, patients will be analysed as randomised according to the intention‐to‐treat principle."

Data were reasonably complete.

The outcome reflected the decisions made by the intervention provider, where recording of the decisions does not involve any judgement, but where the decision itself can be influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

Protocol registered in clinicaltrial.gov: NCT02687412; A protocol published in 2016: Cui L, Shi Y, Zhang GN (2016). Fast‐track surgery after gynaecological oncological surgery: study protocol for a prospective randomised controlled trial. Trials, 17:597.

Blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors.

The allocation sequence was randomised using a random number table. However, no detailed information about allocation sequence concealment was reported.

Quote: "Advertisements were put out all over the department, which may cause deviations from the intended intervention."

The participants were aware of their assigned intervention during the trial and the carers and people delivering the interventions were aware of participants' assigned intervention during the trial. Participants from different groups lived in the same department. Due to the advertisements posted all over the department, there is evidence, or strong reason to believe, that the trial context led to failure in implementing the protocol interventions in the control group and instead led to the implementation of interventions not allowed by the protocol.

Data were reasonably complete.

The outcome reflected the decisions made by the intervention providers, where recording of the decisions does not involve any judgement, but where the decision itself can be influenced by knowledge of intervention received.

No pre‐registered protocol or statistical analysis plan was found. However, the outcome measurements and analyses were clearly defined. There is no indication of selection of the reported analysis from among multiple analyses or selection of the cohort or subgroups for analysis and reporting on the basis of the results.

Lack of information on randomisation, blinding of participants, providers, and outcome assessors, failure in implementing the protocol interventions due to trial context, and no pre‐registered protocol or statistical plan.