Wang 2000a

Methods	Women were given choice for Cu‐IUD or ECPs and those choosing ECPs were randomly allocated to 2 ECP groups. Method of randomization not reported
Participants	150 women attending the family planning clinics in Shandong, China. Women had regular menstrual periods and a single act of unprotected intercourse within 120 h of attending the clinic
Interventions	Mife 10 mg single dose vs LNG 0.75 mg, 2 doses, 12 h apart As noted above, this study had three treatment arms, but the Cu‐IUD comparison was not randomized. Hence, we excluded this comparison and included only the mifepristone vs levonorgestrel comparison
Outcomes	Observed number of pregnancies, side effects and changes in menstrual pattern
Notes	Post‐randomisation exclusion and loss to follow‐up not reported Observed pregnancy/expected pregnant/total number women: Mife 1/3/50; LNG 1/4/50
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Mentioned randomization but description not adequate
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of allocation concealment not mentioned
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not mentioned
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Post‐randomisation exclusion and loss to follow‐up not reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Reported planned outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	None detected