Prasannaraj 2012.

Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial, parallel group Unit of analysis: participant Number randomized: 38 participants in total, 17 in the MMC group, 21 in the EN‐DCR alone group Number of arms: 2 Enrollment start year: 2003 Length of follow‐up: 6 months Sample size calculations: "A combined sample size of 38 patients was arrived at by using the power approach with a power of 90% and an assumed effect size of 35% between the mitomycin and control groups" Losses to follow‐up: none
Participants	Country: India Age (mean (SD)): 33.6 (NR) in total Females (n (%)): 22 (57.9) in total Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of chronic dacryocystitis due to primary acquired postsaccal obstruction of the lacrimal apparatus Exclusion criteria: patients aged 15 years or younger, history of previous lacrimal sac surgery Study group differences: not reported
Interventions	Intervention: EN‐DCR with application of 0.2 mg/mL MMC Comparison intervention: EN‐DCR alone
Outcomes	Measured outcomes: functional success, defined as the relief of epiphora anatomic success, defined as patency to lacrimal irrigation Adverse events: granulations, synechiae, obliterative sclerosis
Identification	Author name: Thomas Prasannaraj Institution: R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre Email: drtpr@yahoo.com
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)	Low risk	"Random allocation of patients to the mitomycin group or the control group was done by allowing each patient to choose from a bunch of unbiased chits. This was done after counseling and before admission for surgery."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No allocation concealment described. Single‐blind study.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	"Single‐blind" study, however details regarding masking were not reported.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No description of blinding of outcome assessors.
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	Low risk	Study appears to be free of other sources of bias.