Hegarty 2002.

Methods	Study design: 2‐arm cross‐over RCT Conducted in UK Number of centres: 1 Recruitment period: unclear Funding source: unspecified
Participants	Inclusion criteria: symptomatic erosive or ulcerative OLP, had not previously used fluticasone or betamethasone, and were generally healthy Exclusion criteria: unclear Group A: randomised 22; analysed 19 Group B: randomised 22; analysed 20
Interventions	Fluticasone 50 μg spray, 2 puffs applied to lesions 4 times daily, for 6 weeks and betamethasone sodium phosphate 500 μg (0.5 mg in 10 mL of water), 3 minutes mouthrinse 4 times daily for 6 weeks Group A: sequence fluticasone and betamethasone Group B: sequence betamethasone and fluticasone Washout period: 2 weeks
Outcomes	Pain (VAS), clinical score (modified from Thongprasom), size of affected mucosa, quality of life (OHIP, OHQoL), adverse effects
Notes	All 5 people who left the study (3 in group A and 2 in group B) did so during fluticasone treatment because of adverse effects.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "A table of random numbers was used."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The sequence was concealed until the effect of both intervention was analysed."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not feasible.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not feasible.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: missing data balanced in numbers across intervention groups (3 and 2) and not likely to have a clinically relevant impact on the intervention effect estimate. Unlikely to have introduced bias.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Planned outcomes reported. Comment: data from this cross‐over study were not analysed as paired and, therefore, they could not be entered in a meta‐analysis.
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias identified.