Study	Reason for exclusion
Alvarez 1989	RCT (uncertain whether quasi‐randomised) of post‐tubal sterilisation hormone levels following Pomeroy or Uchida techniques 17/38 completed the protocol and only 17 were included in analyses
Bordahl 1984	Quasi‐RCT with about 40% postrandomisation exclusions
Chapa 2015	RCT of methods of access (vaginoscopy vs hysteroscopy) for hysteroscopic sterilisation (Essure), not of techniques for interrupting tubal patency
Dueholm 1986	Not an RCT
Lee 1991	Women were 'randomized' (no details provided) before surgery to Hulka clips or modified Pomeroy technique, but at the time of surgery, those found to have tubal disease underwent sterilisation with standard modified Pomeroy technique and were then analyzed in that group
Lipscomb 1994	An RCT of chromotubation vs no chromotubation to confirm poststerilisation tubal occlusion. Although women were apparently also randomized to the sterilisation method (tubal ring, electrocautery, or Hulka clips), comparisons of these methods were not the objective of the study and outcomes and losses to follow‐up were not described separately for each method
Madrigal 1977	ITT analysis was not performed. 1 participant from the clip group was changed to the electrocoagulation group due to a technical problem and was included in the latter for the further analysis
Murray 1992	Quasi‐RCT
Rivera 1989	Quasi‐RCT. The groups were divided into equal numbers of women. In addition, a fourth group was taken as a control group
Sahwi 1989	Quasi‐RCT. The groups were divided into equal numbers of women

Abbreviations

ITT: intention‐to‐treat analysis
 RCT: randomized controlled trial