Kaiser 1995.

Methods	Parallel group RCT Method of allocation: sponsor prepared coded tablets Masking: participant ‐ yes; provider ‐ yes; outcome ‐ yes Losses to follow‐up: none
Participants	Country: Switzerland Number of people randomised: 20 (20 eyes) Number (%) of people followed up: 20 (20 eyes) Average age (range): 73 years (50 to unknown) Percentage women: 74% Ethnic group: not known Baseline visual acuity: not known Comorbidities affecting the eye: not known Percentage current smokers: not known Inclusion criteria: people with non serous AMD. All participants had regional atrophy of the pigment epithelium. Corrected visual acuity was between 20/100 and 20/25 with distance correction of less than 4 dioptres. Exclusion criteria: people with diabetes mellitus, endocrine problems, cardiac dysrhythmia, cardial infarction or hypotension, other ocular disorders
Interventions	Intervention: Visaline (Novopharma Cham, Switzerland). Each tablet contains 1.5 mg buphenine HCl, 10 mg beta‐carotene, 10 mg tocopherol acetate and 50 mg ascorbic acid. Participants took 2 tablets in the morning and at night, daily, except for Saturdays and Sundays. 9 people randomised (9 eyes) 9 (100%) people followed up (9 eyes) Comparator: placebo resembling active treatment prepared by sponsor 11 people randomised (11 eyes) 11 (100%) people followed up (11 eyes) Duration: 6 months Similarity between intervention and comparator: not known
Outcomes	Primary: not specified Secondary: not specified Outcomes reported: distance and near visual acuity intraocular pressure visual fields lens opacity retinal visual acuity colour vision contrast sensitivity Follow‐up: 3 and 6 months Eyes: Only 1 eye per person was evaluated. In cases of bilateral AMD, the eye with better visual acuity was selected
Notes	Source of funding:not known Declaration of interest: not known Date study conducted: not known Trial registration number: not known
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Sequence generation not described in the report but through contact with investigator Quote: "The allocation schedule was generated by the company and treatment schedule was concealed from people enrolling patients."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocation concealment not described in the report but through contact with investigator Quote: "The allocation schedule was generated by the company and treatment schedule was concealed from people enrolling patients."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Visual acuity	Low risk	Study was placebo‐controlled. Placebo not described in the report but investigator reported that: "The placebo was also prepared by the company and tablets resembled the active treatment."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Progression AMD	Low risk	Study was placebo‐controlled. Placebo not described in the report but investigator reported that: "The placebo was also prepared by the company and tablets resembled the active treatment."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Visual acuity	Low risk	Study was placebo‐controlled. Placebo not described in the report but investigator reported that: "The placebo was also prepared by the company and tablets resembled the active treatment."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Progression AMD	Low risk	Study was placebo‐controlled. Placebo not described in the report but investigator reported that: "The placebo was also prepared by the company and tablets resembled the active treatment."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	20 participants enrolled and 20 followed up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Difficult to assess with the information available