Duan 2003.

Methods	Study design: parallel group, randomized controlled trial Number randomized: 159 eyes of 154 participants Exclusions after randomization: 43 eyes of 38 participants at 12 months Number analyzed: 116 eyes of 116 participants at 12 months Unit of analysis: eyes Handling of missing data: participants lost to follow‐up were excluded from the analysis Sample size calculation: not reported
Participants	Country: China Mean age: 50 years Gender: 85 (55%) men and 69 (45%) women Inclusion criteria: refractory glaucoma (IOP > 25 mmHg on combined pharmacologic therapy) Exclusion criteria: none reported Equivalence of baseline characteristics: mean IOP at baseline was similar in both intervention groups; the without MMC group had almost twice as many participants with aphakia as in the MMC group; no information on other baseline characteristics was reported Diagnoses in participants: neovascular glaucoma; uveitic glaucoma; traumatic glaucoma, primary angle‐closure glaucoma; secondary angle‐closure glaucoma; juvenile glaucoma; aphakic glaucoma
Interventions	MMC group (n = 65): Hunan aqueous device with adjunctive topical application of 0.4 mg/mL MMC with a sponge, applied to the sclera near the equator for 1 to 5 minutes followed by rinsing of extra MMC with balanced salt solution (duration of MMC was determined as follows: minimum duration was 1 minute with addition of 1 minute with each of the following characteristics: age of patient less than 40 years; thick connective tissue; rubeosis iris; IOP > 40 mmHg after combined drug therapy) No MMC group (n = 94): Hunan aqueous device with no MMC
Outcomes	Outcomes (primary and secondary outcomes not differentiated): mean IOP; surgical success, defined as IOP between 6 and 21 mmHg; best‐corrected visual acuity Length of follow‐up: every 3 months for the first postoperative year and every 6 months thereafter
Notes	Study period: July 1995 to July 2001 Trial registration: not reported Funding and conflicts of interest: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of sequence generation not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation concealment not reported
Masking of participants and personnel (performance bias)	Unclear risk	Masking of participants and personnel not reported
Masking of outcome assessment (detection bias)	Unclear risk	Masking of outcome assessors not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	38/154 (25%) participants did not complete one year of follow‐up.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol or trial registry record available to compare outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	None identified