Iacono 2012.

Methods	Study design: parallel group randomised controlled trial. Unit of randomisation and analysis: the participant (1 study eye per participant). It was not reported how the eye was chosen.
Participants	Country: Italy Setting: Department of Ophthalmology of the Vita‐Salute University of Milan, Italy Number of participants: 55 Number of men: 13 Number of women: 42 Age (mean ± SD): 65 ± 12 years in the ranibizumab group and 61 ± 11 years in the bevacizumab group. Ethnic group: not reported Inclusion criteria: spherical equivalent refractive error of ≥ ‐6.0 D (an eye that had a spherical equivalent refractive error < ‐6.0 D was eligible if there were retinal abnormalities consistent with pathological myopia, such as lacquer cracks, chorioretinal atrophy or posterior staphyloma, and if the axial length of the eye was at least 26.5 mm); treatment of naive subfoveal mCNV; subfoveal location was defined as the presence of CNV under the geometric centre of the foveal vascular zone, confirmed on FA; baseline BCVA between 20/32 and 20/400, both inclusive; only women who were at the least 12‐month postmenopause or using standard forms of contraception in the fertile age could be included. Exclusion criteria: intraocular surgery of any type within 6 months of the day of injection; any other ocular disease that could compromise vision in the study eye; ocular hypertension or glaucoma; uncontrolled systemic hypertension; peripheral vascular disease; and history of thromboembolism, ischaemic heart disease or stroke.
Interventions	Intervention: intravitreal ranibizumab 0.50 mg, retreatment afterwards based on FA or OCT changes every month (27 participants) Comparator: intravitreal bevacizumab 1.25 mg, retreatment afterwards based on FA or OCT changes every month (28 participants)
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: changes in the mean BCVA at the 18‐month examination; proportion of eyes improving in BCVA by > 1 and > 3 lines at the 18‐month examination. Secondary outcomes: changes in the mean CMT; mean number of injections administered; mean CNV area. Follow‐up: 18 months VA measurement: ETDRS chart at a distance of 4 m.
Notes	Date conducted: participants enrolled from April 2006 to July 2007, and followed for 18 months. Sources of funding: not reported Declaration of interest: F Bandello is an advisory board member for Novartis Pharma. The other authors had no proprietary or financial interest in any of the products mentioned in the study. Trial registration: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The patient randomisation to either IVR [intravitreal ranibizumab] or IVB [intravitreal bevacizumab] was performed by means of sequentially numbered envelopes according to a computer‐generated code list. A permuted block randomisation was performed with a final allocation ratio of 1:1."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "by means of sequentially numbered envelopes according to a computer‐generated code list and stored by an investigator, unaware of the purpose of the study."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "by an experienced retinologist masked to the type of injection."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Best‐corrected visual acuity measurements were made at each visit by an expert examiner, unaware of the purpose of the study, whereas FA and OCT were interpreted separately by two experienced ophthalmologists masked to each other."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "after randomisation and before the administration of the first injection, four patients in the IVR group and three patients in the IVB group refused to participate in the study because they were unable to follow the strict study protocol." Comment: the reason for withdrawal was reported and balanced across arms.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: protocol could not be found but outcome measures were specified in the methods section.
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: no other bias identified.