Appendix 1. Search strategies

PubMed:

(((((((((Taste[MeSH] OR Taste Perception[MeSH] OR Smell[Mesh] OR Olfactory Perception[Mesh] OR Odorants[MeSH])) OR ((taste*[tiab] OR tasting[tiab]))) OR gustat*[tiab]) OR ((smell*[tiab] or smelt[tiab]))) OR olfact*[tiab]) OR odor*[tiab])) AND (((((Milk, Human[MeSH] OR Infant Formula[MeSH] OR Colostrum[MeSH])) OR ((milk*[tiab] or breastmilk*[tiab]))) OR formula*[tiab]) OR ((colostrum[tiab] or colostral[tiab])))) AND ((((infant, newborn[MeSH] OR newborn OR neonate OR neonatal OR premature OR low birth weight OR VLBW OR LBW or infan* or neonat*) AND (randomized controlled trial [pt] OR controlled clinical trial [pt] OR randomized [tiab] OR placebo [tiab] OR drug therapy [sh] OR randomly [tiab] OR trial [tiab] OR groups [tiab]) NOT (animals [mh] NOT humans [mh]))))

Embase:

CINAHL:

CRS Web:

Appendix 2. Risk of bias tool

We will use the standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal to assess the methodological quality of the trials. For each trial, we will seek information regarding the method of randomisation, blinding and reporting of all outcomes of all the infants enrolled in the trial. We will assess each criterion as being at a low, high, or unclear risk of bias. Two review authors will separately assess each study. We will resolve any disagreement by discussion. We will add this information to the table Characteristics of included studies. We will evaluate the following issues and enter the findings into the risk of bias table:

1. Sequence generation (checking for possible selection bias). Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?

For each included study, we will categorise the method used to generate the allocation sequence as:

• low risk (any truly random process e.g. random number table; computer random number generator);

• high risk (any non‐random process e.g. odd or even date of birth; hospital or clinic record number); or

• unclear risk.

2. Allocation concealment (checking for possible selection bias). Was allocation adequately concealed?

For each included study, we will categorise the method used to conceal the allocation sequence as:

• low risk (e.g. telephone or central randomisation; consecutively numbered sealed opaque envelopes);

• high risk (open random allocation; unsealed or non‐opaque envelopes, alternation; date of birth); or

• unclear risk

3. Blinding of participants and personnel (checking for possible performance bias). Was knowledge of the allocated intervention adequately prevented during the study?

For each included study, we will categorise the methods used to blind study participants and personnel from knowledge of which intervention a participant received. Blinding will be assessed separately for different outcomes or class of outcomes. We will categorise the methods as:

• low risk, high risk or unclear risk for participants; and

• low risk, high risk or unclear risk for personnel.

4. Blinding of outcome assessment (checking for possible detection bias). Was knowledge of the allocated intervention adequately prevented at the time of outcome assessment?

For each included study, we will categorise the methods used to blind outcome assessment. Blinding will be assessed separately for different outcomes or class of outcomes. We will categorise the methods as:

• low risk for outcome assessors;

• high risk for outcome assessors; or

• unclear risk for outcome assessors.

5. Incomplete outcome data (checking for possible attrition bias through withdrawals, dropouts, protocol deviations). Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed?

For each included study and for each outcome, we will describe the completeness of data including attrition and exclusions from the analysis. We will note whether attrition and exclusions were reported, the numbers included in the analysis at each stage (compared with the total randomised participants), reasons for attrition or exclusion where reported, and whether missing data were balanced across groups or were related to outcomes. Where sufficient information is reported or supplied by the trial authors, we will re‐include missing data in the analyses. We will categorise the methods as:

• low risk (< 20% missing data);

• high risk (≥ 20% missing data); or

• unclear risk.

6. Selective reporting bias. Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?

For each included study, we will describe how we investigated the possibility of selective outcome reporting bias and what we found. For studies in which study protocols were published in advance, we will compare prespecified outcomes versus outcomes eventually reported in the published results. If the study protocol was not published in advance, we will contact study authors to gain access to the study protocol. We will assess the methods as:

• low risk (where it is clear that all of the study's prespecified outcomes and all expected outcomes of interest to the review have been reported);

• high risk (where not all the study's prespecified outcomes have been reported; one or more reported primary outcomes were not prespecified outcomes of interest and are reported incompletely and so cannot be used; study fails to include results of a key outcome that would have been expected to have been reported); or

• unclear risk.

7. Other sources of bias. Was the study apparently free of other problems that could put it at a high risk of bias?

For each included study, we will describe any important concerns we had about other possible sources of bias (for example, whether there was a potential source of bias related to the specific study design or whether the trial was stopped early due to some data‐dependent process). We will assess whether each study was free of other problems that could put it at risk of bias as:

• low risk;

• high risk;

• unclear risk

If needed, we plan to explore the impact of the level of bias through undertaking sensitivity analyses.