Rocha 2006a.

Methods	Study design: RCT Study grouping: parallel group trial involving a total of 120 eyes, with no further details provided 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 1 Number of participants: number of people (number of eyes): ? (40) 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): ? (40) Sex (number of women/number of men): not reported Age (mean ± unit of error): not reported Blue‐light filtering IOL group 2 Number of participants: number of people (number of eyes): ? (40) Sex (number of women/number of men): not reported Age (mean ± unit of error): not reported Inclusion criteria: not reported Exclusion criteria: not reported Comparison of study groups at baseline: not reported
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Blue‐light filtering IOL 1 Type of IOL: AcrySof IQ (Alcon) Blue‐light filtering IOL 2 Type of IOL: AcrySof Natural (Alcon) Non‐blue‐light filtering IOL Type of IOL: Sensar (AMO)
Outcomes	Distance BCVA, contrast sensitivity (Pelli–Robson chart, Optec® 6500, performed under photopic and mesopic conditions, with and without glare) and wavefront abberation analysis (total root mean square and mean higher order abberations), at 30 and 90 days postoperatively.
Identification	Sponsorship source: Funding sources: none Declaration of interest: none Country: not reported Setting: not reported Comments: Date study conducted: not reported Trial registration number: not reported Contacting study investigators: study authors not contacted; no additional information used for review First author's name: K M Rocha Institution: not reported Email: not reported Address: not reported
Notes	ARVO conference abstract
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: no information provided on masking. We assume that in the absence of reporting on this, patients and personnel were not masked.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Judgement comment: no information provided on masking. We assume that in the absence of reporting on this, outcome assessors were not masked.
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 within abstract to judge other potential sources of bias