Greenblatt 1993.

Methods	Unit of randomisation: ovary Method of randomisation: not stated Time of randomisation: at completion of surgery Blinding: surgeon at second‐look laparoscopy unaware of side that was treated
Participants	Patients undergoing bilateral ovarian cautery by laparoscopy N = 8; 1 exclusion, 7 participants, 14 ovaries Indication for surgery: infertility due to clomiphene‐resistant PCOS Pre‐existing adhesions: no Microsurgery: no Age, mean, years: 26.6 Duration of infertility, mean, years: 3.2 (range 1.5 to 5) Tubal status: normal HSG and laparoscopy Ovulatory status: BBT and serum progesterone Semen analysis: done but results not stated Location: Canada Timing and duration: not stated
Interventions	Oxidised regenerated cellulose on ovary vs uncovered opposite ovary Other adjuvants used: none Second‐look laparoscopy Timing: 3 to 4 weeks after initial surgery Surgeon unaware: yes Adhesiolysis: yes
Outcomes	Adhesions at second‐look laparoscopy: at 3 to 4 weeks Incidence (per ovary) Adhesion score Scoring: revised AFS classification (Fertility and Sterility 1988;49:944‐55) Adverse effects Pregnancy outcomes stated but not by intervention, as unit of randomisation was ovaries
Notes	Power calculation: nil Documentation: video Sponsored by MRC Canada (Interceed provided by Johnson & Johnson) No intention‐to‐treat analysis
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No clear statement of method of random sequence generation. Quote: "Interceed was applied to one ovary, selected randomly"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No clear statement of method of allocation concealment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unit of randomisation is ovary, so all women served as their own controls Surgeon was not blinded to intervention. Study authors also do not state whether treatment allocation took place intraoperatively
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Outcome assessment was performed by an independent blinded surgeon: "three to 4 weeks later, subject returned to the surgical short‐stay unit. They underwent a second laparoscopy performed by a different surgeon, unaware of which side had been wrapped with Interceed"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	1 exclusion due to technical difficulty in applying oxidised regenerated cellulose
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Data presented as numbers of cases and percentages. P values stated for significant outcomes. No omission of outcomes and no subsets of data. No pre‐published protocol identified
Other bias	High risk	Study used within‐participant design for reporting adhesion formation. However, study was unclear on presentation and analysis of matched data, and no comparative data were presented. As such, we were unable to extract appropriate data from the study