Yamaguchi 2011.

Methods	Study design: RCT Study grouping: parallel group, involving 92 people (120 eyes), but with no further details regarding the allocation of interventions Exclusions after randomisation: not reported. Participants could have been potentially excluded on the basis of having complications during cataract surgery or postoperatively. The authors do state that "no eyes had any postoperative complication", but no details were provided in relation to potential intraoperative complications. 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 (SN60WF) Number of participants: number of people (number of eyes): ? (30) Sex (number of women/number of men): 16/14 Age (mean ± SD): 68.7 ± 9.9 years Non‐blue‐light filtering IOL group Number of participants: number of people (number of eyes): ? (30) Sex (number of women/number of men): 14/16 Age (mean ± SD): 68.6 ± 3.8 years Blue‐light filtering IOL group 2 (SN60AT) Number of participants: number of people (number of eyes): ? (30) Sex (number of women/number of men): 18/12 Age (mean ± SD): 68.1 ± 8.7 years Blue‐light filtering IOL group 3 (PY60AD) Number of participants: number of people (number of eyes): ? (30) Sex (number of women/number of men): 15/15 Age (mean ± SD): 68.5 ± 9.0 years Inclusion criteria: people with significant senile cataract and postoperative visual acuity better than 20/20 were eligible for inclusion in the study. Exclusion criteria: people with previous or coexistent ocular pathology and complications during cataract surgery or postoperatively Comparison of study groups at baseline: the authors state that "there was no significant difference in the average IOL powers, age, and postoperative refraction, astigmatism, and pupil diameters under photopic and mesopic conditions between the three types of aspheric and one type of spherical IOLs (Kruskal–Wallis test, p > 0.05)" for those eligible to participate. However, those with intraoperative complications were excluded, and there is no details about these potential events/participants. Also, some participants received bilateral implants but there was no description of first eye versus second eye.
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Blue‐light filtering IOL 1 Type of IOL: Acrysof IQ SN60WF (Alcon) Non‐blue‐light filtering IOL Type of IOL: Tecnis ZA9003 (AMO) Blue‐light filtering IOL 2 Type of IOL: AcrySof SN60AT (Alcon) Blue‐light filtering IOL 3 Type of IOL: PY60AD (Hoya)
Outcomes	Contrast sensitivity, higher‐order aberrations of the whole eye, and pupil diameter under photopic and mesopic conditions were measured one month postoperatively. Higher‐order aberrations were decomposed into Zernike coefficients, calculated according to individual pupil diameter. The correlation between higher‐order aberrations and contrast sensitivity was evaluated.
Identification	Sponsorship source: Funding sources: not reported Declaration of interest: the authors report no conflicts of interest in this work Country: Japan Setting: Keio University Hospital, Japan Comments: Date study conducted: October 2007‐December 2009 Trial registration number: not reported Contacting study investigators: study authors not contacted; no additional information used for review First author's name: Takefumi Yamaguchi Institution: Department of Ophthalmology, Keio University School of Medicine Email: yama19770614@hotmail.com Corresonding author's address: Takefumi Yamaguchi Department of Ophthalmology Keio University School of Medicine Shinanomachi 35, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan
Notes	None
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: trial is described as “randomised” but with no further details
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement comment: trial 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	Quote: "Exclusion criteria were previous or coexistent ocular pathology and complications during cataract surgery or postoperatively." Judgement comment: completeness of outcome data is unclear as participants with complications during cataract surgery were potentially excluded from the analysis
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