Pandey 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT, parallel design, 2‐armed trial
Participants	Total number of randomised participants: 44 Source population: single centre, Nepal Inclusion criteria: not reported. The authors state that "Patients presenting with calcaneal fracture were screened for eligibility by clinico radiological evaluation". Exclusion criteria: not reported Baseline characteristics for surgical group Age, mean (SD): 41.1 (± 13.7) years Sex (M/F): not reported Bilateral fracture: not reported Type of fracture (joint depression/tongue type/comminuted): 15/5/2 Baseline characteristics for non‐surgical group Age, mean (SD): 40.1 (± 10.8) years Sex (M/F): not reported Bilateral fracture: not reported Type of fracture (joint depression/tongue type/comminuted): 12/6/2
Interventions	Surgical group Number randomised: 22 Losses (with reasons): 0 Number analysed: 22 Treatment description: closed reduction and percutaneous screw fixation (MIS) Non‐surgical group Number randomised: 22 Losses (with reasons): 2 (lost to follow‐up) Number analysed: 20 Treatment description: below‐knee cast, no information on rehabilitation
Outcomes	Timing of assessments: 2 weeks (operative group only), 8 weeks, 3 months and 6 months Outcomes reported in review: AOFAS, VAS pain and function score, Böhler's angle, complications Other outcomes: calcaneal height and width, bone union
Notes	Study dates: March 2014 to May 2015 Funding sources: not reported Declarations of interest: not reported Notes: no data presented for functional scores at baseline. No information about ethical approval, and journal is not indexed in the main biomedical databases. Study authors were contacted for more information, but no reply was received.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "patients were randomized into two groups [...] using computer generated random number selection."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details provided on who generated numbers or who had access.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Due to nature of intervention, treating surgeons and participants were not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No information given on outcome data collection, or who conducted clinical assessments or undertook interpretation of x‐rays. We therefore judged that no blinding took place
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	42/44 (95%) followed up for 6 months.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol or clinical trials registration. It is not feasible to effectively assess risk of selective reporting bias without these documents.
Other bias	Low risk	We identified no other sources of bias