Ersen 2015.

Methods	Study design: RCT Duration of the study: August 2012 and September 2013 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of trial registration: not reported Intention‐to‐treat analysis: Likely, but outcome data for participants who had withdrawn from the trial or were lost to follow‐up were not presented Funding sources: the authors reported that no benefits in any form were received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article
Participants	Location: Istanbul, Turkey Number of participants assigned: 60 (30 figure‐of‐eight bandage group; 30 arm sling group) Number of participants assessed: 51 (23 figure‐of‐eight bandage group; 28 arm sling group) Inclusion criteria: Participants with an isolated, mid‐shaft clavicular fracture Acute fracture (presented on the day of injury) Aged ≥ 15 years Exclusion criteria: Participants with fractures of other parts of the clavicle Pathological fracture Open fracture Polytrauma Presentation delayed beyond 24 hours post injury Age (mean; range): Figure‐of‐eight bandage group: 28.7; 15 to 72 years Arm sling group: 33.5; 16 to 75 years Gender (male/female): Figure‐of‐eight bandage group: 19/4 Arm sling group: 22/6 Side of injury (dominant/non‐dominant): Figure‐of‐eight bandage group: 13/10 Arm sling group: 15/13 Classification of injury (displaced/not displaced): Figure‐of‐eight bandage group: 15/8 Arm sling group: 18/10
Interventions	Timing of intervention: All participants were assessed on the day of injury Intervention 1 (figure‐of‐eight bandage): Patients and relatives of those in the figure of eight bandage were educated on how to tighten the bandage when it loosened. The patients were free to use their arms. Intervention 2 (arm sling): The upper limb was immobilised in internal rotation with the sling for three weeks. Rehabilitation: not reported Any co‐interventions: not reported
Outcomes	Length of follow‐up: Total follow‐up was (mean; range): 8.2 / 6 to 12 months Participants were evaluated at the next day (day one), and on days 3, 7, 14 and 21 for pain. Anteroposterior (AP) radiographs were assessed at weeks 4, 8 and 12 and the time to union Loss of follow‐up: nine participants lost to follow‐up: Figure‐of‐eight bandage group ‐ seven participants lost to follow‐up: Unable to come to the hospital (3 participants) Discontinued intervention (3 participants) Not followed the study protocol (1 participant) Arm sling group ‐ two participants lost to follow‐up: Unable to come to the hospital (1 participant) Discontinued intervention (1 participant) Primary outcomes: Function or disability measured by Constant and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores Pain evaluated by VAS from 0 to 10 (no pain to worst pain) Failure of treatment measured Secondary outcomes: Clinical fracture radiographic union Adverse events, measured by: Radiological shortening Discomfort with the use of immobilisation Return to previous activities (work and school), including time to return Patient satisfaction with method of treatment
Notes	We found some data discrepancies between text and tables of paper – all data were checked by authors’ via email. This confirmed the denominators at follow‐up were 23 figure‐of‐eight bandages and 28 arm slings
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	The authors employed non‐stratified randomisation in blocks of two using the sealed envelope method, so when one patient had chosen an envelope, the next patient would be allocated to a group according to the remaining envelope of the pair
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Allocation was not concealed
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	Only 82% of participants completed the follow‐up. Missing outcome data were not balanced in numbers across intervention groups; more participants in the figure‐of‐eight group were lost to follow‐up at 12 months; (2/30 (6.7%) in sling group vs. 7/30 (23.3%) in figure‐of‐eight group). This may have overestimated the benefits of sling
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	The study protocol was not available. Function or disability was measured by validated scores, however, only at the end of follow‐up that raged by 6 to 12 months ‐ the authors did not report functional outcomes at each time point
Other bias	High risk	The results were published in imprecise format. We found some data discrepancies between text and tables of paper