. 2020 Apr 7;2020(4):CD012309. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012309.pub2

Cai 2003.

Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial, parallel group Unit of analysis: eyes Number randomized: 42 total, 21 per group Number of arms: 2 Enrollment start year: 2000 Length of follow‐up: 10 months Sample size calculations: not reported Losses to follow‐up: none
Participants	Country: China Age (mean (SD, range)): not reported Females (n (%)): 32 (76) total, 18 (82) in the MMC group, 14 (70) in the DCR alone group Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of primary chronic dacryocystitis Exclusion criteria: not reported
Interventions	Intervention: DCR with application of 0.2 mg/mL MMC Comparison intervention: DCR alone
Outcomes	Measured outcomes: functional success, defined as the relief of epiphora anatomic success, defined as patency to lacrimal irrigation height of tear meniscus Adverse events: none
Identification	Author name: S Cai Institution: Department of Ophthalmology, Kunshan No. 1 People's Hospital Email: not reported
Notes	Funding source: not reported Declarations of interest: not reported Trial registration number: not reported
*Risk of bias*
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Not randomized by sequence, just by order of visitation.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Random sequence generation was by order of visitation, therefore treatment allocation was not concealed de facto.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)   All outcomes	Unclear risk	Masking of participants or study personnel was not reported.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)   All outcomes	Low risk	Authors mentioned that "all measurements were taken by the same physician in double‐blinded controlled fashion".
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)   All outcomes	Low risk	No missing data reported.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No trial or protocol registration available for comparison to ascertain selective outcome reporting.
Other bias	Unclear risk	There was insufficient information to permit a judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk'.