Jelley 1986.

Study characteristics
Methods	Trial design: "Open, prospective, randomised, parallel study", multi‐centre
Participants	Participants: 80 women were randomised; 68 were analysed. Median age: Buserelin = 28 and danazol = 30  Inclusion criteria:  Laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis 18‐40 years old  Symptomatic disease  Active menstrual cycle  Exclusion criteria:  Previous use of danazol or hormone treatment without success  Use of danazol within 6 months prior to study  Serious endocrine disease or use of other drugs which may interfere with therapy  Setting: UK  Timing: not stated
Interventions	Buserelin 300 mcg three times a day intranasally for 7 months (n = 34)  versus  Danazol 600 mg once daily per OS for 7 months (n = 34)
Outcomes	Relief of overall pain: Dysmenorrhoea, dyspareunia, pelvic pain, pelvic tenderness, induration  Adverse effects rAFS score
Notes	Intention‐to‐treat analysis: not stated Sample size calculation: not stated Funding: not stated Note previous version: Preliminary findings for the first 68 women treated only. Attempted to contact author regarding data. Author not contactable
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"The code was derived from random number tables". No further details were provided of method used to generate the randomisation sequence.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"A sealed envelope was provided for each patient, and opened only after the patient's name had been entered on it".
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Open study, no blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Open study, no blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Detail for attrition:  1 randomised patient failed to start treatment as her symptoms improved  So far 4 have withdrawn from study due to adverse effects: 3 (Dan) and 1 (Bus)
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