Vercellini 1994.

Study characteristics
Methods	Trial design: Open‐label, randomised study
Participants	Participants: 42 women were randomised and analysed. Mean age:  Group 1: 29 ± 6 years Group 2: 31 ± 6 years Inclusion criteria: Diagnostic laparoscopy with no attempts at endometriosis reduction other than biopsy up to 3 months before study entry Exclusion criteria:  Treatment for endometriosis other than NSAID in the previous 3 months Usual contraindications for danazol  Unwillingness to use barrier contraception Setting: Italy Timing: not stated
Interventions	Group 1: Danazol only, oraly 50 mg/day for 9 months (n = 21) versus Group 2: Leuprolide 3.75 mg in a 28‐day IM depot for 3 months, followed by oral danazol 50 mg/day for 6 months + danazol (n = 21)
Outcomes	Relief of overall pain: dysmenorrhoea, non‐menstrual pelvic pain, deep dyspareunia
Notes	Intention‐to‐treat analysis: not stated Sample size calculation: not stated Funding: not stated
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Computer‐generated randomisation list". 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	Unclear risk	No details provided of blinding of participants or personnel
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No details provided of blinding of outcome assessment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	5/42 withdrew from this study, one in each group at the fifth month of treatment (for persistent pain) and one in each group during follow‐up (they requested additional therapy). One women in the Danazol group was lost to follow‐up.   Group 1: 18/21 completed follow‐up. Group 2: 19/21 completed follow‐up.
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