Dean 2002.

Methods	RCT, parallel‐arm Children randomly assigned Conducted in the dental clinics of the Indiana University Institutional Review Board, USA. Operators were investigators: "...standardization of the investigators in the experimental technique was attempted by using a clinician with over 20 years of experience in performing the electrosurgical…"
Participants	50 children, 50 teeth mean age 5.3 years, age range 2.2 to 8.1 years
Interventions	Group 1:Pulpotomy (formocresol); n = 25 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access with high‐speed bur Pulpotomy amputation with excavator, slow‐speed bur, or both For haemostasis, dry cotton pellet No irrigation Cotton wool pellet soaked with FC placed on pulp stumps for 5 minutes after pulpotomy, followed by IRM dressings before being restored with stainless‐steel crown Group 2:Pulpotomy (electrosurgery); n = 25 (1 visit) Rubber dam Caries removal prior to pulpal access Pulp access with high‐speed bur Pulpotomy amputation with excavator, slow‐speed bur, or both For haemostasis, dry cotton pellet No irrigation Pulpotomy, haemorrhage control with sterile cotton wool pellet and electrosurgery to pulp stumps. Maximum of 3 applications of 1 second to each pulpal orifice, with cool‐down periods of 5 seconds between applications to limit heat build‐up. Unit at 40% power. Followed by IRM dressings before being restored with stainless‐steel crown
Outcomes	Clinical success (no pain, no abscess, no fistula or no excessive mobility), radiological success (normal periodontal ligament space, no pathological root resorption, no canal calcification and no periradicular radiolucency): mean evaluation at 11.5 (range 5‐25) months for Group 1 and 10.9 (6‐31) for Group 2 (at tooth level)
Notes	Source of funding: quote: "This study was supported by Birtcher Medical Services, Inc" Comment: Birtcher Medical Systems, Inc. is a USA manufacturer of medical and surgical instruments
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "...the patients were assigned randomly by the flip of a coin"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement
Blinding of clinical outcomes assessment	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement
Blinding of radiological outcomes assessment	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing outcome data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make a clear judgement