Ozkiris 2012.

Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial, parallel group Unit of analysis: participants Number randomized: 36 in total, 18 per group Number of arms: 2 Enrollment start year: 2007 Length of follow‐up: mean of 11.5 months in the MMC group, mean of 12.7 months in the EN‐DCR alone group (overall range of 6 to 22 months) Sample size calculations: not reported Losses to follow‐up: none
Participants	Country: Turkey Age (mean (SD)): 37.2 (10.2) in total Females (n (%)): 15 (41.7) in total, 7 (38.8) in the MMC group, 8 (44.4) in the EN‐DCR alone group Inclusion criteria: unilateral or bilateral nasolacrimal duct obstruction proven by nasolacrimal duct irrigation, aged > 18 years, previous history of DCR surgery, follow‐up of at least 6 months Exclusion criteria: distal canalicular or common canalicular obstruction on dacryocystography, patients with eyelid or sac abnormality, cases with suspicion of malignancy, previous radiation therapy, post‐traumatic lids/bony deformity, proximal obstruction, nasal structural abnormalities, severe atrophic rhinitis Study group differences: not reported
Interventions	Intervention: EN‐DCR with 0.5 mg/mL MMC application and canalicular silicone intubation Comparison intervention: EN‐DCR with canalicular silicone intubation
Outcomes	Measured outcomes: functional success, defined as the relief of epiphora anatomic success, defined as patency to lacrimal irrigation Adverse events: none
Identification	Author name: Mahmut Ozkiris Institution: Bozok University Medical Faculty Email: mozkiris@yahoo.com
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)	Low risk	Randomized by computer random number generator.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Allocation concealment procedure not reported.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Participants were masked to assigned group; although personnel were not (no placebo was used), this probably did not affect outcome.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"Patients were examined with an endoscope 2 days after surgery, after 1 week, and monthly thereafter for a minimum of 6 months by another surgeon (S.G.) who was blinded to the operation technique performed. Both subjective and objective assessments were performed"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All participants were analyzed in the group to which they had been randomized.
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'.