Morias 1979.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial conducted in Belgium
Participants	59 people with chronic leg ulcers, 45/59 (76%) of venous aetiology, were recruited Group 1: 29 people Group 2: 30 people Median (range) baseline ulcer area (mm2): Group 1: 100 (4 to 3300); Group 2: 100 (3 to 4400) No information about baseline ulcer duration or infection status of wounds
Interventions	1. Placebo tablet identical in appearance to levamisole 2. Levamisole dosed according to body weight ranging from 100 to 250 mg, given on 2 consecutive days every week until cure or failure or for 20 weeks Previously used topical treatment was continued for all participants; no information about whether this included compression
Outcomes	At 20 weeks Number of ulcers cured 1. 22/29 (76%) 2. 30/30 (100%) Secondary outcomes: Adverse effects 1. Group 1: 0/29 (0%) 2. Group 2: 3/30 (10%) ‐ all were gastric complaints
Notes	Group 1: evident failure (8) Group 2: evident failure (2) The trial authors state that double‐blind treatment was stopped before the end of the trial in eight participants in Group 1 and two participants in Group 2 because of "evident failure" (defined as no improvement). However, other information in the trial report suggests that all 59 participants were followed up for 20 weeks
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"All patients were sequentially numbered and received a bottle bearing their individual sequence number and containing double‐blind tablets. These tablets randomly contained either 50 mg of levamisole (30 patients) or a placebo (29 patients) and were identical in appearance." It was not stated how the randomisation sequence was generated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Reports "sequentially numbered drug containers of identical appearance"
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Participant blinded to the intervention	Low risk	"these tablets randomly contained either 50mg of levamisole or a placebo and were identical in appearance"
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Outcome assessor blinded to the intervention	Unclear risk	No information provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Drop out rate described	Low risk	Participants complete at analysis; no dropouts or withdrawals reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Drop out rate acceptable	Low risk	No withdrawals reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) ITT analysis	Low risk	Participants complete, no exclusions
Baseline factors comparable	Unclear risk	The two groups appeared comparable for baseline ulcer area. However, no information about baseline ulcer duration was available, and it was not stated whether wounds were clinically infected