Study	Reason for exclusion
Barton 1979	This study examines the outcome following phalangeal shaft fractures; however, no comparison between different interventions is made.
Chale 2006	A randomised comparison of different anaesthesia options in finger lacerations; however, fingertip entrapment injuries are explicitly excluded and the population is not paediatric.
Cheng 2004	A retrospective comparison of outcomes in fractured digits treated with three separate surgical interventions. No randomisation.
Claudet 2007	An epidemiological report discussing entrapment injuries. No comparison made between interventions.
Das 1978	A comparison of outcomes in fingertip injuries treated with three different surgical treatments. The method of group allocation and randomisation is unclear, and the study explicitly excludes those injuries that do not result in pulp loss. This study was excluded because it does not include those injuries that are the focus of this review (as shown in Table 2).
De Boer 1981	A quasi‐randomised comparison of fingertip dressings. The mechanism of injury in participants was unclear. The study states that "four children were among the patients" in one group, inferring that the majority were adults and that there were no children in the other comparison group.
Doraiswamy 1999	A prospective epidemiological report of fingertip injuries. No comparison made between interventions.
Douglas 1972	A quasi‐randomised study comparing conservative with surgical management of digital amputations. These injuries are not consistent with the fingertip injuries of interest to this review (Table 2).
Duncan 1993	A retrospective analysis of outcomes in hand injuries with open fractures. No randomisation used in group allocation and the population is not described as paediatric.
Foucher 1994	A retrospective analysis of outcomes following fingertip pulp loss. No comparison made between different interventions.
Halim 1998	A study measuring outcome following use of a particular fingertip dressing. No comparison drawn to other interventions and the mechanism of injury in participants is unclear.
Holm 1974	A retrospective comparison of conservative and surgical management of fingertip injuries. Participants were not randomly allocated to treatment groups.
Illingworth 1974	A description of management of fingertip entrapment injuries at one centre. No comparison made between different interventions.
Inglefield 1995	An epidemiological report including a description of outcomes following a single intervention in treating fingertip entrapment injuries. No comparison made with other interventions.
Innis 1995	An article describing the mechanism of injury in fingertip entrapment injuries. No comparison made between different treatment interventions.
Keramidas 2004	A randomised trial comparing different anaesthetic modalities in fingertip injuries in adults. Paediatric participants explicitly excluded.
Ljungberg 2003	An epidemiological report discussing fingertip entrapment injuries. No comparison drawn between interventions.
Ljungberg 2008	A retrospective analysis of financial cost associated with paediatric fingertip entrapment injuries. No comparison drawn between treatment modalities.
Louis 1980	An article describing management of open fingertip injuries with a single intervention. Paediatric participants not included, and no comparison made with other interventions.
Mennen 1993	An article describing outcome following use of a particular dressing in fingertip injuries. Mechanism of injury and participant age unclear, and no comparison drawn to other interventions.
O'Shaughnessy 1990	A retrospective comparison of outcome following fingertip entrapment injury treated with different interventions. Participants were not randomly allocated to treatment groups.
Rosenthal 1983	An article describing different techniques of managing fingertip injuries. No comparison between interventions made in terms of outcome.
Roser 1999	A prospective study comparing surgical nailbed repair to nail trephination for subungual haematomas. The interventions were compared sequentially rather than concurrently with the first 25 participants recruited managed operatively and the subsequent 26 participants managed conservatively by trephination. As this allocation process was not randomised or pseudo‐randomised, the study was excluded from the review.
Schiller 1957	A case series describing a single intervention. No comparison made with other interventions.
Seaberg 1991	An observational study of subungual hematomas treated with trephination involving paediatric and non‐paediatric participants. No comparison with other interventions.
Shetty 1996	A letter to the editor describing a comparison of three different treatment modalities in fingertip injuries. The randomisation unclear, and the study did not involve paediatric participants.
Strauss 2008	A quasi‐randomised study comparing suture to glue in the repair of finger‐tip injuries. The study did not examine an exclusively paediatric population ‐ although some children were included, the mean age of the study population was 30.76 years. Further, the mechanism of injury in participants was not clearly defined, and while five were described as "crush‐type" lacerations, it is not clear if these cases were in paediatric participants or in participants outside the scope of this review. The corresponding author was contacted but no longer has access to raw study data, making analysis of any potential subgroup of participants meeting inclusion criteria impossible.
Vadivelu 2006	A prospective epidemiological analysis of fractures in hand injuries in children. No comparison made between different treatment modalities.
Whittaker 1994	A prospective randomised trial comparing two dressings in the treatment of fingertip injuries. The study did not examine an exclusively paediatric population; the mean age of the study population was 31 years. Although four participants in the trial group and three in the control group were children, these participants were not analysed separately. Further, the study included participants with a mechanism of injury outside the scope of this review, including puncture injuries and injuries involving toes.
Williamson 1987	A randomised trial comparing different dressings for use in fingertip entrapment injuries. A combination of crushing and slicing mechanisms of injury included. Participants under 14 years of age explicitly excluded.