Xie 2015.

Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial, parallel group Unit of analysis: eyes Number randomized: 62 in total, 31 per group Number of arms: 2 Enrollment start year: 2010 Length of follow‐up: 3 to 12 months Sample size calculations: not reported Losses to follow‐up: not reported
Participants	Country: China Age (mean (SD)): 41.7 (0.6) in total Females (n (%)): 46 (74.2) in total Inclusion criteria: not reported Exclusion criteria: not reported Study group differences: not reported
Interventions	Intervention: EN‐DCR with application of 0.2 g/L 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: not reported
Identification	Author name: Ping Xie Institution: Jiujiang No. 1 People's Hospital Email: xieping1977@126.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)	Unclear risk	Method of random sequence generation was not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of treatment allocation concealment was not described.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Masking of participants and investigators was not described.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Masking of outcome assessors was not described.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Investigators assessed "Cure rate" and "effective rate" these terminologies may be different from functional or anatomic success. Additionally, attrition rate was not reported and it is unclear whether all participants were analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Investigators assessed "Cure rate" and "effective rate" these terminologies may be different from functional or anatomic success, therefore selective outcome reporting could not be ruled out. Additionally, there were no protocols or trial registration with which to compare
Other bias	Unclear risk	Sources of funding and sample size estimation were not reported, there is also insufficient information to judge as to low or high risk of bias.