Yalaz 1999.

Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial, parallel group Unit of analysis: participants Number randomized: 60 in total, 10 per group Number of arms: 5 Enrollment start year: 1995 Length of follow‐up: 12 months Sample size calculations: not reported Losses to follow‐up: none
Participants	Country: Turkey Age (mean (SD)): 35 (13.81) in total Females (n (%)): 47 (78.3) in total Inclusion criteria: primary acquired idiopathic nasolacrimal duct obstruction Exclusion criteria: secondary nasolacrimal duct obstruction due to factors such as trauma, facial surgery, sinus disease, and revision DCR Study group differences: no difference
Interventions	Intervention 1: EX‐DCR with application of 0.5 mg/mL MMC Intervention 2: EX‐DCR with application of 1 mg/mL MMC Intervention 3: EX‐DCR with application of 2.5 mg/mL 5‐FU Intervention 4: EX‐DCR with application of 5 mg/mL 5‐FU Comparison intervention: EX‐DCR alone
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: Müslime Yalaz Institution: Çukurova University Medical Faculty Email: not reported
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	"The patients were randomly divided into three groups". 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 at 12 months.
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'.