Gimbel 1995.

Methods	Study design: parallel‐group RCT Unit of randomization: the individual (one eye per participant) Number randomized: 106 total; 53 eyes of 53 participants in combined surgery group and 53 eyes of 53 participants in cataract surgery alone group Unit of analysis: the individual (one eye per participant) Number analyzed: 102 total; 51 eyes of 51 participants in combined surgery group and 51 eyes of 51 participants in cataract surgery alone group Exclusions and losses to follow‐up: 4 participants; 2 in each group Power calculation: none reported
Participants	Country: Canada (one site), South Africa (two sites) Age (mean ± SD): 75.5 years in combined surgery group; 77.5 years in cataract surgery alone group (SDs not reported) Gender: not reported Ethnicity: not reported Inclusion criteria: IOP ≥ 17 mmHg and < 27 mmHg on no medication or only a topical beta‐blocker visual field defects consistent with glaucomatous damage cup‐to‐disc ratio of > 0.5 Exclusion criteria: closed‐angle glaucoma post‐traumatic glaucoma neovascular glaucoma use of glaucoma medications other than topical beta blocker advanced cup/disc ratios, visual field defects, or scotomas previous intraocular surgery proliferative diabetic retinopathy use of topical steroids Equivalence of baseline characteristics: yes (preoperative IOP), no (percentage of participants who used beta blockers) Diagnoses in participants: POAG or ocular hypertension and cataract; participants with pigment dispersion or pseudoexfoliation glaucoma also included
Interventions	Intervention 1: combined cataract surgery (phacoemulsification) with IOL implantation and trabecular aspiration (trabeculotomy ab externo) Intervention 2: cataract surgery (phacoemulsification) with IOL implantation alone Study follow‐up: 24 months
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: mean IOP and mean change in IOP Secondary outcomes: complications, number of glaucoma medications Adverse events reported: yes Intervals at which outcomes assessed: 1 day, and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery
Notes	Type of study: published Study period: not reported Funding source: not reported Disclosures of interest: "None of the authors has a proprietary interest in the development or marketing of this technique or in any of the instruments or drugs described in this paper." Publication language: English Subgroup analysis: none reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of randomization not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation concealment not reported
Masking (detection bias)	High risk	"the physician following the patient was not masked as to whether the patient was in the study or control group"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	4 of 106 (4%) participants excluded from analysis: 2/53 in combined surgery group and 2/53 in cataract surgery alone group
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Results for outcomes described in Methods section of study publication reported
Other bias	Low risk	None identified