Durrie 2005.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial Study grouping: within person Number randomly assigned: 102 eyes, 51 participants Exclusions after randomization: 0 Number analyzed: 102 eyes, 51 participants Unit of analysis: eye Losses to follow‐up: 0 Handling of missing data: no missing data Power calculation: not reported Study dates: July 2003 to August 2003
Participants	Country: USA Overall mean age: 34.7 years (SD 7.7) Age range: not reported Gender: women 69%, men 31% Setting: not reported Equivalence of baseline characteristics: yes Inclusion criteria: people with a manifest myopic refractive error up to 7.00 D sphere with < 0.50 D astigmatism in both eyes or aberrometer dilated refraction up to 7.50 D sphere with < 1.50 D astigmatism, age ≥ 21 years, a normal ophthalmic examination except for refractive error, normal topography, no history of ocular surgery, stable refraction within 60.50 D over the past year, no ongoing use of ophthalmic or systemic medications, and no history of autoimmune disease Exclusion criteria: not reported
Interventions	Laser for ablation: LADARVision 4000 Intervention 1 Intervention: LASIK with a Hansatome microkeratome Flap dimensions: 180 μm thickness, 9.5 mm diameter, superior hinge Number of people randomized: 51 eyes, 51 participants Length of follow‐up: Planned: not reported Actual: 3 months Intervention 2 Intervention: LASIK with an IntraLase femtosecond laser Flap dimensions: 118 μm thickness, 9.5 mm diameter, and 55 degree superior hinge Number of people randomized: 51 eyes, 51 participants Length of follow‐up: Planned: not reported Actual: 3 months
Outcomes	Mean UCVA after surgery Intervals at which outcome assessed: 1 day, 1 week, and 1 and 3 months Planned follow‐up: not reported Actual follow‐up: 3 months Scale: logMAR Instrument for measurement: Electronic Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy trial testing protocol Mean spherical equivalent of the refractive error after surgery Intervals at which outcome assessed: 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month Planned follow‐up: not reported Actual follow‐up: 3 months Scale: D Instrument for measurement: not reported Proportion of eyes within ± 0.5 D of target refraction after surgery Intervals at which outcome assessed: 1 day, 1 week, and 1 and 3 months Planned follow‐up: not reported Actual follow‐up: 3 months Scale: D Instrument for measurement: not reported Adverse events reported: no
Identification	Sponsorship source: not reported Country: USA Setting: Institute of Ophthalmology Comments: none Author's name: Guy M Kezirian Institution: SurgiVision Consultants, Inc. Email: guy1000@surgivision.net Address: 2183 Hathaway Avenue, Westlake Village, CA 91362‐5170
Notes	Trial registration number: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The selection of the flap creation method was done at the time of enrollment using a predefined randomization schedule."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: method of concealment not described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: trial did not address this risk of bias
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Clinical examinations were performed by optometrists trained in LASIK evaluations who were blinded to which eye had the femtosecond laser flap."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "All patients (51/51, 100%) appeared for the 1‐ and 3‐month visits."
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no published trial protocol with which to compare
Other bias	High risk	Quote: "Dr. Durrie is a paid consultant to IntraLase Corporation and Alcon Laboratories, Inc. Dr. Kezirian received financial compensation from IntraLase Corporation for his assistance with data analysis and preparation of the manuscript"