Bergqvist 1997.

Study characteristics
Methods	Trial design: "Double‐blind randomised study"
Participants	Participants: 49 eligible women; 49 were randomised and 47 were analysed  Mean age: mean age not stated, median age 30 years (range 21‐46years)  Inclusion criteria:  Laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis  Not to use any hormonal preparations during study  No hormone treatment in previous 3 months  No GnRHas for previous 12 months  No steroid therapy for previous 12 months  Exclusion criteria: not stated Setting: Europe  Timing: not stated
Interventions	Nafarelin 200 mcg daily IN + placebo PO for 6 months (n = 12)  versus  Nafarelin 400 mcg daily IN + placebo PO for 6 months (n = 12)  versus  Nafarelin 200 mcg daily IN + norethisterone 1.2 mg daily PO for 6 months (n = 25)
Outcomes	Relief of overall pain: dysmenorrhoea, dyspareunia, pelvic pain, pelvic tenderness and induration  Adverse effects  AFS score
Notes	Intention‐to‐treat analysis: not stated Sample size calculation: not stated Funding: not stated Note previous version: Need raw data for symptom scores. Authors contacted regarding methods and data. No response to date
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"randomisation was carried out on a block basis". No further details of method used to generate the randomisation sequence were provided.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details of method used to conceal allocation were provided.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled study
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled study
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Two participants (2/25) from the nafareline + norethisterone group withdrew from the trial due to mood swings (1 participant) and pregnancy (1 participant).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The study protocol was not available but it was clear that the published reports included all expected outcomes, including those that were prespecified.
Other bias	Low risk	No other risk of bias detected