Wang 2010.

Methods	Study design: RCT Study grouping: parallel group, with one eye per participant randomised to one of the interventions Exclusions after randomisation: randomised participants were excluded from the baseline data on the basis of intraoperative complications and no details about these potential exclusions were provided. Losses to follow‐up: participants who were "unable to attend for follow‐up visits" (i.e., those with incomplete follow‐up) were excluded from the analyses. No details were provided in relation to those participants potentially excluded on these grounds. How missing data were handled: not reported Reported power size calculation? no
Participants	Baseline characteristics Blue‐light filtering IOL 1 ‐ yellow Number of participants: number of people (number of eyes): 41 (41) Sex (number of women/number of men): not reported Age (mean ± SD): not reported Non‐blue‐light filtering IOL Number of participants: number of people (number of eyes): 38 (38) Sex (number of women/number of men): not reported Age (mean ± SD): not reported Blue‐light filtering IOL 2 ‐ photochromic Number of participants: number of people (number of eyes): 39 (39) Sex (number of women/number of men): not reported Age (mean ± SD): not reported Inclusion criteria: this study enrolled consecutive eyes that had cataract surgery with IOL implantation from November 2008‐June 2009. The inclusion criteria were senile cataract, no previous ophthalmic surgery, a potential visual acuity of 0.5 or better, and no colour vision deficiency. Exclusion criteria: people with congenital ocular abnormalities, glaucoma, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, retinal detachment, inflammatory signs, IOL power calculation < +10.00 diopters (D) or > +30.00 D, astigmatism greater than 2.00 D, intraoperative complications (e.g., posterior capsule rupture, bleeding), abnormal pupil reaction, or unable to attend the follow‐up visits. Comparison of study groups at baseline: there were no significant differences in the demographic data reported for the three IOL groups. Randomised participants were excluded from the baseline data on the basis of intraoperative complications and no details about these potential exclusions were provided.
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Blue‐light filtering IOL 1 ‐ yellow Type of IOL: AY‐1 (UY) (Hoya) Non‐blue‐light filtering IOL Type of IOL: MC611MI IOL (HumanOptics AG) Blue‐light filtering IOL 2 ‐ photochromic Type of IOL: Aurium Matrix, Model 400 (Medennium, Inc.)
Outcomes	Postoperative visits were scheduled at one day, one week, and one and three months. Outcomes were the postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (testing using an Optec 6500 device (Stereo Optical Co.) at spatial frequencies of 1.5, 3.0, 6.0, 12.0, and 18.0 cycles per degree (cpd) and under photopic (85 candelas (cd)/m2), mesopic (3 cd/m2), photopic with glare (135 lux), and mesopic with glare (28 lux) lighting conditions), contrast vision (under 400 lux, 30 lux and 5 lux at 100%, 25%, and 5% contrast), hue discrimination (using the Farnsworth‐Munsell (FM) 100‐hue test under outdoor daylight conditions and indoor mesopic conditions), and the Catquest‐9SF patient questionnaire (which includes subjective evaluation of glare, halo and colour‐vision perception), at three months postoperatively.
Identification	Sponsorship source: Funding sources: not reported Declaration of interest: no author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned Country: China Setting: Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University; Beijing Ophthalmology Visual Sciences Key Laboratory, Beijing, China Comments: Date study conducted: November 2008‐June 2009 Trial registration number: not reported Contacting study investigators: authors contacted on 14 August 2017 regarding the contrast sensitivity outcome unit of error (Figure 1); no response was received to this email and, as a result, we could not include these data in the meta‐analysis First author's name: Jun Wang, MD Institution: Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Ophthalmology Visual Sciences Key Laboratory Email: prince909090@163.com Corresponding author's address: Jun Wang Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital Capital Medical University, Beijing Ophthalmology Visual Sciences Key Laboratory, Number 2 Chongnei Street, Bejing, China 100730
Notes	None
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	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: described as “double blind” with no information on whether participants and personnel were masked
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "The physician who conducted the follow‐up examinations and collected the data was not aware which IOL had been implanted in the eye being evaluated." Judgement comment: clearly states that outcome assessors were masked
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: follow‐up not reported, and participants with intraoperative complications were excluded, without specifying which groups these individuals were assigned to
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: no access to protocol or trials registry entry
Other bias	Low risk	Judgement comment: no other apparent sources of bias