Wadhera 2013.

Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial, parallel group Unit of analysis: participants Number randomized: 50 in total, 25 per group Number of arms: 2 Enrollment start year: 2004 Length of follow‐up: 1 year Sample size calculations: not reported Losses to follow‐up: none
Participants	Country: India Age (mean (SD)): 32.4 (10.28) in the MMC group, 33.2 (9.3) in the EN‐DCR alone group Females (n (%)): 10 (25) in the MMC group, 8 (32) in the EN‐DCR alone group Inclusion criteria: aged 16 to 50 years, symptoms and signs suggestive of nasolacrimal duct blockage refractory to conventional medical treatment Exclusion criteria: marked deviation of nasal septum on same side, chronic sinusitis, nasal polyps, severe bony deformity of lacrimal sac fossa (post‐traumatic), bleeding disorders, nasal tumors, history of previous DCR Study group differences: no differences
Interventions	Intervention: EN‐DCR with application of 0.5 mg/mL MMC Comparison intervention: EN‐DCR
Outcomes	Measured outcomes: functional success, defined as the relief of epiphora anatomic success, defined as patency to lacrimal irrigation Adverse events: mild postoperative bleeding
Identification	Author name: Raman Wadhera Institution: Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences Email: dr.wadhera@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)	Unclear risk	"They were assigned randomly into two groups of 25 patients each". Method of random sequence generation was not reported.
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	Masking of participants and personnel was not reported.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Masking of outcome assessors was not reported.
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'.