Malhotra 2007.

Methods	Single‐centre RCT
Participants	36 participants (age 44.6 years, dominant hand in 23 participants, 12 women) in the ECTR group 34 participants (35 wrists) (age 45.3 years, dominant hand in 22 participants, 23 women) in the OCTR group 30 participants (30 wrists) and 30 participants (31 wrists) were available for follow‐up in the ECTR and OCTR groups respectively
Interventions	ECTR (1‐portal Agee technique) vs open (short incision of 3 to 4 cm) CTR
Outcomes	Follow‐up at 1 and 6 months postoperatively Symptoms, function, electrophysiological studies, complications, grip strength, time to return to daily activities
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation was performed using a ‘sealed envelope’ technique. No information is given regarding the way of sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation was performed using a ‘sealed envelope’ technique
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	Unclear risk	There were 34 participants (35 wrists) in the OCTR group. Out of these, 30 participants (31 wrists) were available for follow‐up. 30 out of 36 participants were available in ECTR group. No ITT analysis was performed
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No SDs or specific P values are given
Other bias	Low risk	There were no baseline differences. The authors declare no conflict of interest. The study was funded from academic resources