Glasier 2010

Methods	Enrolled women randomly assigned to receive UPA 30 mg or LNG 1.5 mg orally. Randomisation schedule stratified by site and time from unprotected sexual intercourse to treatment (within 72 h and 72–120 h) with a block size of 4 Single‐blind (women masked to treatment assignment, whereas those giving the interventions and study investigators were not, since the study drugs differed in appearance (different tablet size and blister pack))
Participants	Women with regular menstrual cycles who presented to a participating family planning clinic requesting emergency contraception within 5 days of unprotected sexual intercourse were eligible for enrolment Randomised, multicentre, non‐inferiority trial 2221 women randomly assigned to UPA (CDB‐2914) (n = 1104) or LNG  (n = 1117)
Interventions	UPA 30 mg vs LNG 1.5 mg, single dose, orally
Outcomes	Observed number of pregnancies, side effects and changes in menstrual pattern
Notes	Loss to follow‐up: UPA 48/1104 women; LNG 40/1117 (total 4%) Observed pregnancy/total number of women: UPA 15/941; LNG 25/958 Pregnancy in high‐risk cases: UPA 4/53; LNG 5/51 Pregnancy in low‐risk cases: UPA 11/888; LNG 20/907 Changes in menses: Early: UPA 67/1013; LNG 191/1031 Delay: UPA 177/1013; LNG 103/1031
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"The randomization schedule was stratified by site and time from unprotected sexual intercourse to treatment with a block size of four." Computer generated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"allocation concealment by identical opaque boxes labelled with a unique treatment number" "Only after registration and request for randomization did the system allocate a treatment number to the participant from the lot available on site, according to the randomization schedule."
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"The study was single blind‐ i.e. participants were masked to treatment assignment, whereas those giving the interventions and study investigators were not, since the study drugs differed in appearance. Study drug blister packs were packaged individually in identical opaque boxes labelled with a unique treatment number". "The investigator or nurse took the appropriate treatment pack from storage, removed the tablet from the blister pack out of sight of the participant, and gave it to the participant under direct supervision".
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	ITT analysis used and participant withdrawals explained
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Planned outcomes from protocol reported
Other bias	Low risk	None detected