Lee 2013.

Methods	Single‐centre RCT, Department of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital
Participants	n = 40, > 1 year to 70 years (only 1 patient > 10 years old was included in the study), 29 males (72.5%), 11 females (27.5%). Length of the wounds was 3.1 cm for the LG group and 3.5 cm for the LI group. Depth of the wounds was 0.5 cm and 0.57 cm, respectively.
Interventions	1. LAT gel (n = 23): mean length of wound/cm (SE) 3.1 cm (SE 0.31). Mean depth of wound/cm (SE) 0.5 (0.07). Location of wound: head 17/23 (74.0%), trunk 0/23 (0%) and limb 6/23 (26%) 2. Infiltrated lidocaine (n = 17): mean length of wound/cm (SE) 3.5 cm (SE 0.36). Mean depth of wound/cm (SE) 0.57(0.08). Location of wound: head 11/17 (64.7%), trunk 0/17 (0%) and limb 6/17 (35.3%)
Outcomes	1. LAT gel: a. Efficacy: 10 cm VAS pain score by participant (mean ± SE) = 2.5 (0.52) b. Pain during application (mean ± SE): 1.5 (0.40) Pain score by parents, clinician or participants younger than 10 years old; results not provided 2. Lignocaine infiltration: a. Efficacy: 10 cm VAS pain score by participant (mean ± SE) = 2.6 (0.58) b. Pain during application (mean ± SE): 3.5 (0.46) Pain score by parents, clinician or participants younger than 10 years old; results not provided Complications: 1. No acute anaesthetic complications in either group 2. One week later, assessed for wound complications 1. LAT gel (study lists 25 but probably typographical error because only 23 participants in this treatment arm) a. Wound Infection, 5/25 (5/23?) b. Wound dehiscence = 1/25 (1/23?) c. Stitches lost = 1/25 (1/23?) 2. Lignocaine infiltration a. Wound Infection, 2/14 b. Wound dehiscence, 0/14 c. Stitches lost, 0/14
Intervention dates	Janurary to April 2003
Declaration of interest	None.
Notes	Souce of funding: none
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Suitable participants were assigned to 2 arms of treatment via sealed envelopes. However, precise method of sequence generation was not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Use of assigned envelopes described but information proved insufficient to allow a decision between low risk and high risk
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not blinded and outcome could be affected by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	40 patients recruited and no drop‐outs mentioned
selective reporting of outcomes All outcomes	Low risk	All prespecified primary outcomes were reported.
Other bias (sample size)	High risk	LAT gel = 23 participants Infiltrated lidocaine = 17 participants