Saravelos 1996.

Methods	Unit of randomisation: ovaries Method of randomisation: computer‐generated in opaque envelopes Timing of randomisation: unclear Blinding: double
Participants	Women (N = 21) undergoing treatment for polycystic ovarian syndrome by ovarian electrocautery 7 dropouts: 4 were pregnant, 2 withdrew, 1 had such dense adhesions at laparoscopy of both ovaries that no assessment could be made Pre‐existing adhesions: nil Mean age, years: 28 No other cause for infertility found Timing: 1994 to 1995 Country: UK (1 centre)
Interventions	Oxidised regenerated cellulose vs no treatment
Outcomes	Adhesion formation Incidence Extent Severity Further adhesiolysis Timing of second‐look laparoscopy: 2 to 11 weeks Pregnancy: outcomes given but ovaries randomly assigned, not participants
Notes	Supported by Johnson & Johnson Video taken Power calculations: nil No intention‐to‐treat analysis
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No clear statement provided regarding method of randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Sealed envelopes used for allocation concealment but unclear when sealed or opened. Quote: "a sealed envelope disclosed the assignment of which side was to be treated with Interceed"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unit of randomisation was right or left ovary, so every woman also acted as her own control Not clearly stated whether surgeon was blinded, or when treatment allocation was revealed
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Second‐look laparoscopy was video‐recorded and assessed by independent blinded assessors
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	1 participant excluded, as underwent ovarian drilling; 4 withdrew because of pregnancy; 2 withdrew because of personal choice (n = 21)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Data reported as incidences and percentages. No data conversion. No P values reported
Other bias	Low risk	No other bias identified