Howard 2009.

Methods	Single‐centre UK study Randomised controlled trial Recruitment dates not specified
Participants	62 participants Gender ratio not presented Age data not presented Inclusion criteria: not specified Exclusion criteria: not specified
Interventions	Absorbable polyglactin suture closure vs Non‐absorbable polypropylene suture closure
Outcomes	Time spent managing wound at first postop visit Less time spent in wound management for absorbable group once outliers excluded (P value = 0.003) (measured by the nurse reviewing the wound) Pain VAS at first postop visit (patient‐reported) No difference between groups Complications described?: yes Details: group A ‐ 1 × delayed wound healing, 1 × swollen hand; group B ‐ 1 × wound infection, 2 × delayed healing, 2 × retained suture material
Notes	Length of follow‐up: primary outcome assessed at 10 to 14 days Low‐quality evidence, as review group was concerned that exclusion of outliers despite use of non‐parametric statistics in analysis of primary outcome created significant differences and imprecision No funding sources acknowledged; no conflicts of interest declared
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer generated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear from paper
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	3 of 62 missing
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Protocol for exclusion of outliers not given; non‐parametric statistics used after test of normality described; unclear why outliers excluded; outlier exclusion may have influenced outcome of study
Other bias	Low risk	No blocked randomisation in an unblinded study
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Blinded until start of procedure
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Assessor unblinded