Costa 2007.

Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial, parallel group Unit of analysis: participants Number randomized: 50 in total, 13 in Group SS (saline solution), 17 in Group 5‐FU1 (5‐fluorouracil), 9 in Group 5‐FU3, 11 in Group C Number of arms: 4 Enrollment start year: not reported Length of follow‐up: 60 days Sample size calculations: not reported Losses to follow‐up: none
Participants	Country: Brazil Age (mean (SD)): not reported Females (n (%)): not reported Inclusion criteria: patients with dacryocystitis Exclusion criteria: patients with nasal affections such as septal deviation, turbinate hypertrophy, nasal fractures, and other lacrimal system problems Study group differences: not reported
Interventions	Intervention 1: Group 5‐FU1: DCR and a 0.50 mL injection of 5‐FU (1 mL of 5‐FU (250 mg/10 mL) added to 4 mL of 0.9% saline solution) during surgery Intervention 2: Group 5‐FU3: DCR and three 4 mL injections of 5‐FU (1 during surgery, 1 on the third postoperative day, and 1 on the fifth postoperative day) with the same concentration as that of Group 5‐FU1, for a total dose of 15 mg Intervention 3: Group SS: DCR and an injection of saline solution (4 mL of 0.9% saline) during the surgery, and 0.5 mL of the saline solution injected into the nasal mucosa at the end of the surgery Comparison intervention: Group C: DCR only
Outcomes	Measured outcomes: functional success, defined as the relief of epiphora anatomic success, defined as patency to lacrimal irrigation ostium size on nasal endoscopy postoperatively Adverse events: total ostium occlusion by the healing tissue, persistent epiphora
Identification	Author name: Marilisa Nano Costa Institution: State University of Campinas Email: m.nano@uol.com.br
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)	Unclear risk	Method of random sequence generation was not specified.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation concealment mechanism was not specified.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Masking of participants was not specified. Study personnel would not have been blinded due to the differences in the surgical interventions.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Masking of outcome assessors was not specified.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing data; all participants who had been randomized were analyzed.
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'.