Zetterstrom 1969.

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 group to which they had been assigned. Sample size calculations: Not reported.
Participants	Country: Sweden. Dates: September 1967 to September 1968. Number allocated: 117 consecutive patients. Age: Mean: 22.0 years (range 5 to 57 years). Sex: 102 men and 17 women (as reported); 86% male. Race: Not reported. Sickle cell disease: Not reported. Inclusion criteria: Traumatic hyphema. Exclusion criteria: Perforation of the eyeball.
Interventions	Treatment (n = 58): Topical atropine with dexamethasone (Decadron) eyedrops 5 times/day and moderate ambulatory activity within hospital. Control (n = 59): Conservative treatment consisting of complete bed rest without pinhole glasses or simultaneous local therapy. Treatment for both groups included inpatient care until VA in the injured eye was satisfactory, the hyphema was absorbed, and IOP did not deviate from normal.
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: Length of hospitalization Final VA Risk of secondary hemorrhage Complication rates Follow‐up: Followed until discharge; some participants with iritis were seen as outpatients after discharge.
Notes	Funding source not reported. Method used to calculate mean VA not reported.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Allocation was not randomized; patients alternately assigned to treatment groups based on order of admission.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Method of allocation based on order of admission.
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	Unclear risk	Masking was not reported, but unlikely due to the types of interventions being studied.
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 primary and secondary outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of potential bias were identified.