Gonzalvo 2000.

Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial, parallel group Unit of analysis: participants Number randomized: 30 in total, 15 per group Number of arms: 2 Enrollment start year: 1996 Length of follow‐up: 6 months Sample size calculations: not reported Losses to follow‐up: not reported
Participants	Country: Spain Age (mean (SD)): 48.11 (11.77) in total, 52.33 (4.82) in the MMC group, 43.5 (15.2) in the EX‐DCR alone group Females (n (%)): 11 (64) in total, 6 (75) in the MMC group, 5 (55) in the EX‐DCR alone group Inclusion criteria: patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction after previous canaliculation Exclusion criteria: none Study group differences: not reported
Interventions	Intervention: EX‐DCR with MMC (0.2 mg/mL) application during surgery Comparison intervention: EX‐DCR alone
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: development of herpes zoster of cranial nerve V
Identification	Author name: Francisco Jose Gonzalvo Ibanez Institution: Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet Email: not reported
Notes	Funding source: not reported Declarations of interest: none Trial registration number: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The random component in the sequence generation process was not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The method of concealment was not described.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Although participants and outcome assessors did not have knowledge of the groups to which participants had been assigned, masking of study personnel was not reported.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"The patient and the outcome assessor did not have knowledge of the group designated to each patient"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	There were no missing outcome data.
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'.