Soysal 2001.

Methods	Method of allocation: computer‐generated numbered opaque sealed envelopes
Participants	Country: Turkey 47 women with pelvic pain and venographically demonstrated pelvic congestion
Interventions	Goserelin 3.6 mg subcutaneous implant monthly for six months versus medroxyprogesterone acetate tablets 30 mg daily for six months
Outcomes	Venography score; pelvic symptom and physical examination score (modified from Biberoglu and Behrman); Hospital Anxiety, Depression and Total scores; revised Sabbatsberg Sexual Rating Scale
Notes	Note: NO dropouts
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated randomisation sequence
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Opaque sealed envelopes
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Blinding: some outcomes assessed double‐blind. Participants not blind owing to modes of drug administration
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	At final assessment of periuterine venography, operators were blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Exclusion postrandomisation: zero Losses to follow‐up: zero
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes reported
Other bias	Low risk	Nil