Aly 2015.

Methods	Design: parallel ‐ 2 arms Country: Egypt Method of randomisation: children were randomly assigned into 2 groups: Group A were given oral propranolol for 6 months combined with oral prednisolone for the initial 2 weeks, while Group B were given oral propranolol alone for 6 months. Blinding: single‐blind/assessors Location: Pediatric Surgery Department, Ain Shams University, Egypt Length of follow‐up: 8 months
Participants	Diagnosis: cutaneous haemangioma causing complications such as deformity, ulceration, bleeding, infection, or damage of orifices Sex: not stated Age: between 4 weeks and 8 months Inclusion criteria: the included participants had an age less than 9 months, with cutaneous haemangioma causing complications such as deformity, ulceration, bleeding, infection, or damage of orifices. Exclusion criteria: congenital haemangioma, main/extensive deep subcutaneous component, those receiving previous treatment for IH or with hypersensitivity to propranolol, known cardiac disease (heart failure or AV block), pulmonary disease (asthma or bronchiolitis), diabetes mellitus, visceral haemangiomas, or PHACE syndrome Number of randomised children: 40
Interventions	Intervention A (Number of children: 20): children were given oral propranolol dosed as 2 mg/kg/day in 3 divided doses for 6 months combined with oral prednisolone dosed as 2 mg/kg/day in 2 divided doses for the initial 2 weeks, then stopped after gradual tapering over 1 week. Propranolol was gradually tapered over 2 weeks before stopping. Intervention B (Number of children: 20): children were given oral propranolol monotherapy in the same previous dose for 6 months.
Outcomes	Primary: decrease in the dimensions of the haemangiomas Secondary: lightening of colour and flattening of their surfaces
Notes	Trial registration: not stated Funder: not stated Role of funder: not stated A priori sample size estimation: not stated Conducted: December 2011 to March 2014 Declared conflicts of interest: not declared
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "All patients were randomly assigned into one of the two groups at equal probability using sealed envelope method." Page 1504 Comment: Insufficient information to rate this item as low or high risk of bias.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "All patients were randomly assigned into one of the two groups at equal probability using sealed envelope method." Page 1504 Comment: Authors reported information about adequate allocation concealment.
Blinding of participants (Performance bias)	Unclear risk	It is highly probable that participants were aware of intervention group assigned, but it is unclear whether this had an impact or not in trial results.
Blinding of personnel (performance bias)	Unclear risk	It is highly probable that researchers were aware of intervention group assigned, but it is unclear whether this had an impact or not in trial results.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Response to therapy was measured by blinded volume estimations at weeks (...)." Page 1504 Comment: Authors reported information about adequate blinding of outcome assessment.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No children were lost at follow‐up.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Selective reporting of information was not detected.
Other bias	Low risk	No other biases were detected.