Federico 2013.

Methods	RCT Location: Italy, multicenter Years: recruited 2006 to 2010 Follow‐up: median 34 months Pharmaceutical sponsorship: no Classification system: WHO Central pathology: only for grade 3 FL
Participants	Number of patients randomized: 534 Number of patients analyzed: 504 Numbers of patients with FL: 504 Number of patients included in our analysis: 333 Lymphoma: previously untreated stage II to IV FL, grade 1 to 3a, age 18 to 75 years, ECOG 0 to 2 Line of treatment: first Patients: median age (range) 56 years (30 to 75 years)
Interventions	Same: R‐CHOP x 6 + R x 2 versus R‐CVP x 8 Note number of courses in each arm
Outcomes	Time to treatment failure Response rate Progression‐free survival Overall survival Toxicity
Notes	Unpublished data from authors This was a triple arm study: R‐CVP versus R‐CHOP versus R‐FM. We extracted data for the first comparison, according to protocol
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomization arm was assigned automatically by the EDC system upon verification of eligibility criteria. Arm was communicated on screen and confirmed by email to the investigator. Randomization was based on prepopulated tables that were prepared and uploaded by the IT staff on the EDC system at study start
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomization tables could not be accessed or modified, or both, by any investigator or study co‐ordinator
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Open study
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing outcome data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No change from protocol
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Open study
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Open study; review authors did not believe this will introduce bias