Read 1974.

Methods	Study design: Quasi‐randomized controlled series. Exclusions after allocation: None. Losses to follow‐up: None. Intention‐to‐treat: All participants were analyzed in the groups to which they had been assigned. Sample size calculations: Not reported.
Participants	Country: USA. Dates: February 1970 to July 1972. Number allocated: 137 consecutive patients. Age: Mean 15.9 years. Sex: 108 men and 29 women; 79% male. Race: 101 (74%) African‐American. Sickle cell disease: Not reported. Participants were similar with respect to baseline characteristics. Inclusion criteria: Traumatic hyphema. Exclusion criteria: Associated penetrating ocular injury Surgical exploration for suspected rupture of the globe Bodily injury Recurrent ocular injury Personal or family history of diabetes or bleeding disorders
Interventions	Medical treatment #1 (n = 66): Bed rest with elevation of head to 30°, bilateral ocular patches and shield over injured eye, and sedation. Medical treatment #2 (n = 71): Moderate ambulatory activity in the hospital, patching and shielding of the traumatized eye only, and no sedation. Eyedrops were not administered in either medical treatment regimen. On day 5, participants with remaining major primary or secondary hyphemas (n = 16) were alternately assigned to continue with medical treatment or to receive surgical intervention (ab externo corneal section with clot expression).
Outcomes	Primary and secondary outcomes not specified. Measured outcomes: Changes or presence of IOP Duration of primary hyphema Risk of secondary hemorrhage Risk of corneal staining Need for surgical intervention Complications of the hyphema Final VA Follow‐up: 1 week, 1, 3, and 6 months (range 3 months to 2.5 years; mean 16.5 months).
Notes	Funded by a grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Allocation was not randomized; alternately assigned patients to treatment groups at time of admission. Imbalance in number assigned to each group (66 vs 71) suggests alternation was not systematic.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Allocation was assigned on an alternate basis.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Participants	High risk	Masking of participants was not possible given the interventions under study.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Personnel and outcome assessors	High risk	All participants were treated by the primary investigator in order to standardize therapy and to record results as accurately as possible.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Primary outcome	Low risk	All participants were analyzed in the group to which they had been assigned.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Secondary outcomes	Low risk	All participants were analyzed in the group to which they had been assigned.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Reported results for all outcomes
Other bias	High risk	A subset of participants with major hyphema on day 5 were alternately allocated to either continue with medical treatment as originally assigned or to undergo surgical intervention. The participants that had surgery were thus censored on day 5 from their medical treatment outcomes.