Andersen 1987a.

Methods	Study design: RCT Duration of the study: June 1981 to September 1982 Protocol was published before recruitment of patients: not reported Details of trial registration: not reported Intention‐to‐treat analysis: Likely, but outcome data for participants who had withdrawn from the trial or were lost to follow‐up were not presented Funding sources: not reported
Participants	Location: Denmark Number of participants assigned: 79 (49 figure‐of‐eight bandage group; 34 arm sling group) Number of participants assessed: 61 (34 figure‐of‐eight bandage group; 27 arm sling group) Inclusion criteria: People with middle third clavicle fractures Aged > 13 years Patient informed consent Exclusion criteria: Perforation of the skin or primary neurovascular symptoms Age (median; range): Figure‐of‐eight bandage group: 19; 14 to 81 years Arm sling group: 19; 14 to 66 years Gender: not reported Side of injury: not reported Classification of injury: not reported, just fracture types (2 fragments, 1 intermediary fragment and 2 or more intermediary fragments) and fracture dislocations (undisplaced, minor displacement, major displacement)
Interventions	Timing of intervention: after diagnosis Intervention 1 (figure‐of‐eight bandage): After 2 days, and 1 and 2 weeks, this method was checked and adjusted by participant's own general practitioner. This immobilisation was used for 3 weeks. All participants were stimulated to move the shoulder as soon as possible Intervention 2 (arm sling): Simple sling was used only as long as the patient felt a need for it. All participants were stimulated to move the shoulder as soon as possible Rehabilitation: not reported Any co‐interventions: not reported
Outcomes	Length of follow‐up: The figure‐of‐eight group lasted a median interval of 12 weeks (10 to 16) and the sling group lasted a median interval of 13 weeks (10 to 17); the figure‐of‐eight group also was assessed at 2 days, 1 and 2 weeks Loss of follow‐up: 18 participants lost to follow‐up: Figure‐of‐eight bandage group ‐ 11 participants lost to follow‐up: Refused bandage (1 participant) Bandage removal (1 participant) DVT (1 participant) Fracture displacement (2 participants) Defaulted the follow‐up examination (6 participants) Arm sling group ‐ two seven participants lost to follow‐up: Patient confined to bed for 5 weeks (1 participant) Treatment with Velpeau for 1 week (1 participant) Patient suffered hemiplegia (1 participant) Defaulted on follow‐up examination (4 participants) Primary outcomes: Shoulder function; this was assessed using a non‐validated score Pain: use of analgesics and duration of pain Secondary outcomes: Adverse events: deformity at fracture site, skin problems, neurovascular symptoms, impairment of shoulder motion, weakness of shoulder muscles, pain from movement and tenderness of fracture site; other complications (not specified) Radiographic outcomes: healing of fracture, amount of callus and displacement Patient satisfaction with type of treatment Other outcomes: duration of bandaging, discomfort from treatment, severity of discomfort, duration of discomfort, number of visits to general practitioner, duration of functional impairment, duration of sick leave/disablement
Notes	The outcomes were evaluated by a non‐validated scoring system
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random numbers table was used
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Details to ascertain that allocation was concealed were not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants and personnel were not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Outcomes assessors were not blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Less than 80% of participants completed the follow‐up (23% of withdrawals)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	The authors used non‐validated scores to assess function and pain; treatment failure was not reported
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement