Garrido 2002.

Methods	Randomised trial, not double blinded
Participants	Participant characteristics • Number randomly assigned (n = 85) • Age (years): 63.1 (mean) • Sex (male/female): 50/35 • Duodenal/gastric ulcer: 27/58 • Forrest group: Ia/Ib = 25, IIa = 52, IIb = 8
Interventions	Interventions • Primary intervention: epinephrine injection vs epinephrine injection and polidocanol injection • Medical treatment: not specified • Second‐look endoscopy: no • Epinephrine volume: not specified
Outcomes	Outcomes assessed Rebleeding rate • Mortality criteria: not specified • Bleeding criteria: haematemesis or fresh melena • Emergency surgery (assessed for whole group, but no separate data for the n = 85 cases randomly assigned)
Notes	Spanish language report
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Study authors did not explain sequence generation Comment: unclear
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Study authors did not explain allocation concealment Comment: unclear
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not done Criteria: Blinding is virtually impossible in studies on endoscopic treatment. Review authors believe that this did not introduce significant bias
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	It is unclear whether n = 340 participants were randomly assigned or only the n = 85 reported in this publication who were treated endoscopically. Reporting of outcomes and numbers in each group at each time point is unclear, for example, 3 participants died as a result of haemorrhage, but it is not clear which therapy they received
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	It is unclear whether all outcomes were reported