Mackenzie 2000.

Methods	Single centre, randomised prospective study
Participants	36 hands in 26 men had complete follow‐up. 22 hands in 15 participants had ECTR and 14 hands in 11 participants had mini‐open technique. No information on age of participants. Because only 2 women were enrolled, they were not included in the analysis. Participants were also excluded if they expressed a desire for one technique over the other. Diagnosis was confirmed by electrophysiological study. Most participants, but not all, had failed conservative treatment prior to surgery
Interventions	1‐portal ECTR (Agee technique) vs mini‐open CTR
Outcomes	Follow‐up at 1, 2 and 4 weeks Grip, pinch strength, SSS, FSS
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information given
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Participants were excluded if they expressed a desire for one technique over the other
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No information given. Participants and personnel could not be blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No information given. Participants and personnel could not be blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	No reference to the number of participants initially enrolled; quote: "26 male patients had complete follow‐up and comprise this analysis"; reasons for attrition not provided No ITT analysis was used
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Because only 2 women were enrolled, they were not included in the analysis No SDs or specific P values are given
Other bias	Unclear risk	No baseline differences were found The authors do not mention conflicts of interest or financial support