Rocha 2006b.

Methods	Study design: RCT Study grouping: parallel group, involving a total of 60 people and 120 eyes, with no further details regarding how data were analysed 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): not reported Sex (number of women/number of men): not reported Age (mean ± unit of error): not reported Non‐blue‐light filtering IOL 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 Blue‐light filtering IOL group 2 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: 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	Total and high‐order wavefront aberrations and contrast sensitivity at 30 and 90 days postoperatively
Identification	Sponsorship source: Funding sources: not reported Declaration of interest: not reported 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 Corresponding author;s name: Karolline M Rocha, MD Institution: not reported Corresponding author's email: not reported Address: not reported
Notes	AAO 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 on masking. We assume that in 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 on masking. We assume that in 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 to judge other potential sources of bias from the abstract