Liao 2000.

Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial, parallel group Unit of analysis: eyes Number randomized: 88 eyes in total, 44 per group Number of arms: 2 Enrollment start year: 1995 Length of follow‐up: 10 months or more Sample size calculations: not reported Losses to follow‐up: not reported
Participants	Country: Taiwan Age (mean (SD)): 57.9 (7.4) in the MMC group, 57.4 (10.2) in the EX‐DCR alone group Females (n (%)): not reported Inclusion criteria: patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction Exclusion criteria: not reported Study group differences: no significant differences with regard to age
Interventions	Intervention: EX‐DCR with 0.2 mg/mL MMC application 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 height of tear meniscus Adverse events: wound disruption
Identification	Author name: Shu Lang Liao Institution: Department of Ophthalmology National Taiwan University Hospital Email: lang89@ha.mc.ntu.edu.tw
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	Method of random sequence generation was not reported: "88 patients with a diagnosis of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction were randomly assigned into mitomycin C and conventional DCR groups".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of treatment allocation concealment was not reported.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Authors state that "all the examinations were done by the same physician with double blind control"; however, details regarding masking and who was masked and how it was performed were not reported.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Authors state that "all the examinations were done by the same physician with double blind control", but unclear whether this means outcome assessors were masked.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	There were no missing 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'.