Hall 2009.
| Methods | RCT. Only 1 eye in each participant had surgery and was studied | |
| Participants | Country: New Zealand Number of participants randomised: 50 Number of eyes randomised: 50 Number (%) of participants followed up: 94% Average age: 49.8 years (range 34–76 years) % female: 46% female Inclusion criteria: participants with pterygium > 4 mm in size Exclusion criteria: other ocular disease, or participant aged younger than 25 years |
|
| Interventions | Intervention: fibrin glue fixation of conjunctival autograft (n = 25) Comparator: suture fixation of conjunctival autograft (n = 25) |
|
| Outcomes | List outcomes: recurrence of pterygium, complication of interventions, surgical time, participant discomfort Follow‐up: 12 months |
|
| Notes | Funding source: not reported Conflict of interest: not reported Date study conducted: May 2006‐November 2006 Trial registration number: NCT00326560 |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Eyes randomly allocated to treatment using pre‐allocated codes |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Eyes were independently randomised by independent nursing staff, and the surgeon was unaware which technique (sutures or glue) was to be performed until after the conjunctival graft was excised and the circulating nurse entered the room with either glue or sutures. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | For some of the outcomes, study authors tried to avoid observer influence (e.g. participants filled in the VAS questionnaire prior to follow‐up visits to avoid observer influence). |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | At 3‐month follow‐up, 22/25 participants for the fibrin glue attended their appointment and 22/25 participants for the suture group. At 6‐month follow‐up, 48/50 participants could be contacted, with 2 from the suture group lost to emigration. At 12 months, 47/50 participants could be contacted, with 2 from the suture group and one from the glue group lost due to emigration |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Protocol not obtained; all outcomes stated in methods reported |