Miura 1993

Methods	Prospective randomised study. Three treatment arms: carbamazepine, phenytoin and sodium valproate Dates conducted and country: Not stated (assumed conducted in Japan due to author affiliation)
Participants	Children aged 1 to 14 with previously untreated partial seizures and/or generalised tonic‐clonic seizures Number randomised: PHT = 51, CBZ = 66. 84 (72%) with partial seizures. No information on gender Range of follow‐up: 6 to 66 months, mean follow‐up: 37 months in PHT group, 34 in CBZ group
Interventions	Monotherapy with PHT or CBZ. Initial daily dose: PHT = 7.2 ± 1.4 mg/kg/day, CBZ = 13.0 ± 1.6 mg/kg/day
Outcomes	Proportion of all randomised participants with seizure recurrence (by seizure type) Proportion of participants with optimum plasma levels with seizure recurrence (by seizure type)
Notes	Very limited information available.The study is reported in a summary publication of 3 different studies (other 2 studies are not CBZ vs PHT). Outcomes chosen for this review were not reported, and IPD not available Funding: Not stated Conflicts of interest: None stated
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Study is described as "randomised" but no further details are provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information provided; unclear if the study was blinded or not
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information provided; unclear if the study was blinded or not
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Ranges of follow‐up given for both treatment groups. Results reported "at the end of follow up," no withdrawals or exclusions mentioned, all participants included in analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Seizure recurrence outcomes described and well reported. No adverse events reported; no protocol available so unclear if adverse events were planned a priori. Outcomes for this review not available
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias detected