Yildirim 2007.

Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial, parallel group Unit of analysis: eyes Number randomized: 35 participants (40 eyes), 20 eyes per group Number of arms: 2 Enrollment start year: not reported Length of follow‐up: 19 months Sample size calculations: “The power calculation of the study was found to be 0.45 for the satisfaction rates and was 0.08 for success rates, both of which were underpowered." Losses to follow‐up: not reported
Participants	Country: Turkey Age (mean (SD)): 41.2 (11.5) in the MMC group, 39 (7.5) in the EX‐DCR alone group Females (n (%)): not reported Inclusion criteria: diagnosis of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction Exclusion criteria: previous DCR surgery Study group differences: no significant differences
Interventions	Intervention: EX‐DCR with application of 1 mL of 0.02 mg/mL MMC 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: Cem Yildirim Institution: Pamukkale University Email: yildirimc@hotmail.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	How the random sequence was generated is not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	How allocation was concealed is not described.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Whether participants and personnel were masked is not described.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	The same physician, who did not know whether the participant had received MMC application during surgery, documented subjective symptoms and objective findings.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Number randomized was analyzed.
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'.