Goodrich 2001.

Methods	Method of allocation: Randomisation was not used but the order of presentation of the devices was rotated for consecutive participants (quasi-random assignment). Masking: Participant - masking issues are not described but the study was likely to be unmasked given the use of recognisable devices. Provider - same as above; Outcome - same as above Exclusions after randomisation: none reported. Losses to follow-up: none reported. Unusual study design: Within-subject design, i.e. a cross-over study in which all participants try the devices consecutively
Participants	Country: USA Number randomised: 22 veterans enrolled in the residential rehabilitation programme of the Western Blind Rehabilitation Center (none with previous reading training). Age: mean 73 (range: 53 - 87) years Sex: 20 men, 2 women. Inclusion criteria: (1) legal blindness; (2) central scotoma with a intact peripheral field; (3) stated desire for reading rehabilitation. Exclusion criteria: (1) cognitive deficits or current use of medication that would impair reading ability; (2) illiteracy
Interventions	5 days “hands-on” training with each of the 3 types of devices (the prescribed optical device considered as control). Eccentric viewing training preceded reading training. Treatment: stand-mounted CCTV, hand-held CCTV using a 27-inch television. Control: prescribed optical device (stand magnifier n = 19; microscopic lenses n = 3). Duration: 15 training sessions plus sessions needed for evaluation
Outcomes	Reading speed using paragraphs of 250 words in Times New Roman (1 M font) with 5th-grade difficulty reading comprehension assessed with 5 question for each paragraph; Reading duration during each training session; Participants' preferences for a specific device with forced and open-ended questions
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quasi-randomised study: the order of presentation of the devices was rotated for consecutive participants; despite this, selection bias should be avoided since all participants used all devices (cross-over nature of the study design)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Order of randomisation can be foreseen because rotation was used; despite this, selection bias should be avoided since all participants used all devices (cross-over nature of the study design)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No loss to follow-up or exclusion after randomisation reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No protocol available, but primary outcome reported
Period effect	Unclear risk	No details reported
Carry-over effect and period-by-treatment interaction	Unclear risk	No details reported
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias identified