Kuchenbecker 2004.

Methods	Study design: RCT Study grouping: parallel group, involving 15 participants (number of eyes not reported) Exclusions after randomisation: not reported Losses to follow‐up: not reported How missing data were handled: not reported Reported power size calculation? no
Participants	Baseline characteristics Blue‐light filtering IOL group Number of participants: number of people (number of eyes): not reported Sex (number of women/number of men): not reported Age (mean ± unit of error): not reported Non‐blue‐light filtering IOL group Number of participants: number of people (number of eyes): not reported Sex (number of women/number of men): not reported Age (mean ± unit of error): not reported Inclusion criteria: Non‐amblyopic patients between 60 and 80 years, with "inconspicuous" colour recognition (Ishihara) Exclusion criteria: not reported Comparison of study groups at baseline: not reported
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Blue‐light filtering IOL Type of IOL: YA‐60BB (Hoya) Non‐blue‐light filtering IOL Type of IOL: VA‐60BB (Hoya)
Outcomes	Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity at six weeks postoperatively
Identification	Sponsorship source: Funding sources: not reported Declaration of interest: not reported Country: Germany Setting: not reported Comments: Date study conducted: not reported Trial registration number: not reported Contacting study investigators: study authors contacted to obtain further details about the abstract; no additional information provided for review First author's name: J Kuchenbecker Institution: Universitäts‐Augenklinik Magdeburg Email: not reported Corresponding author's address: not reported
Notes	Conference abstract, in German
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: not reported how list was generated. Study is described as “randomised” but with no further details
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: not reported how allocation administered. Study is described as “randomised” but with no further details
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Judgement comment: study is described as open label
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Judgement comment: study is described as open label
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: follow‐up not reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: no access to protocol or trials registry entry
Other bias	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: insufficient information to judge other sources of bias