Ueda 2005.

Methods	Study design: RCT Study grouping: parallel group, involving 31 participants (although the number of eyes is 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): 16 (?) Sex (number of women/number of men): not reported Age (mean ± unit of error ‐ not specified): 71.1 ± 6.7 years Non‐blue‐light filtering IOL group Number of participants: number of people (number of eyes): 15 (?) Sex (number of women/number of men): not reported Age (mean ± unit of error ‐ not specified): 72.1 ± 6.6 years Inclusion criteria: people with cataract aged 40 to 80 years Exclusion criteria: not reported Comparison of study groups at baseline: not reported
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Blue‐light filtering IOL Type of IOL: ENV‐13 (Menicon) Non‐blue‐light filtering IOL Type of IOL: ES‐13 (Menicon)
Outcomes	The mean fluorescein transmittance in vitreous by vitreous fluorophotometry, the cystoid macular oedema by fluorescence angiography, and the thickness of fovea by optical coherence tomography at three months and 12 months postoperatively
Identification	Sponsorship source: Funding sources: none Declaration of interest: none for all authors 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: T Ueda Institution: Ophthamology, Showa University, Tokyo, Japan Email: not reported Corresponding author's 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 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 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 provided within abstract to judge other potential sources of bias