Article	Outcome definition	Time point	Nedocromil sodium or sodium cromoglycate	Placebo	Number of participants randomised (n) and comments
Davies 1993	Participants’ global evaluation of treatment efficacy (4‐point scale)	28 days	Cromoglycate: Excellent/good: 68% Moderate/poor: 32%	Excellent/good: 63% Moderate/poor: 37%	n = 95 Individual categories may be estimated from graph, and mean score could be calculated if considered appropriate
James 2003	Investigator’s composite symptom score (itching, tearing, conjunctival redness) (range 0‐9), participant’s composite symptom score (itching, redness, tearing) (range 0‐9)	14 days	Cromoglycate: Investigator: Mean 2.2 Participant: Mean 1.8	Investigator: Mean 2.9 Participant: Mean 2.8	n = 144 Estimated from graph (no SD). Days 3 and 7 also available (investigator‐reported); days 1‐14 available (participant‐reported)
Leino 1992	Overall assessment by participants and investigators (4‐point scale)	28 days	Cromoglycate and nedocromil: No data presented	No data presented	n = 195 No significant differences between the 3 groups (except for subgroup analysis by centre)
Melamed 1994	Participant‐reported composite symptom score: itchy eyes, burning eyes, tearing eyes, overall eye condition (range 0‐16)	14 days	Nedocromil: Mean 3.8	Mean 5.1	n = 86 No SD. Estimated from graph in Figure 2 of the original report. Slightly unclear which symptoms contributed to this score
Melamed 2000	Participant‐reported composite symptom score: itchy eyes, burning eyes, tearing eyes, overall eye condition (range 0‐16)	"peak pollen period"	Nedocromil: Mean 3.95	Mean 4.92	n = 189 No SD. The time point varied by included study. One of the two studies is Melamed 1994, above