Comparison 1. Photocoagulation versus control.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Development of choroidal neovascularisation (CNV)	11	3580	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.07 [0.79, 1.46]
1.1 Bilateral studies	6	2873	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.99 [0.72, 1.36]
1.2 Unilateral studies	7	707	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.04 [0.60, 1.79]
2 Development of CNV: sensitivity analysis assuming moderate correlation (0.5) for bilateral studies	11		Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.11 [0.82, 1.51]
2.1 Bilateral studies	6		Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.12 [0.75, 1.66]
2.2 Unilateral studies	7		Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.08 [0.64, 1.82]
3 Development of geographic atrophy	2	148	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.30 [0.38, 4.51]
4 Visual loss of 2 to 3+ lines	8		Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.99 [0.81, 1.22]
4.1 Bilateral studies	4		Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	0.93 [0.67, 1.28]
4.2 Unilateral studies	5		Odds Ratio (Random, 95% CI)	1.17 [0.75, 1.82]
5 Loss of ≥ 0.3 log units of contrast sensitivity at 2 years	1		Odds Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
6 Reading speed (words/minute)	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
7 Drusen reduction	3	944	Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	9.16 [6.28, 13.37]
8 Subgroup analysis: development of CNV by type of laser	10	3198	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.94 [0.71, 1.23]
8.1 Argon laser	5	2340	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.83 [0.58, 1.20]
8.2 Diode laser	3	722	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.33 [0.84, 2.11]
8.3 Dye laser	2	136	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.51 [0.21, 1.27]
9 Subgroup analysis: development of CNV in subthreshold vs. visible/standard photocoagulation	11	3720	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.05 [0.78, 1.41]
9.1 Subthreshold photocoagulation	4	850	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.27 [0.82, 1.98]
9.2 Visible/standard photocoagulation	8	2870	Odds Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.91 [0.59, 1.41]