Jensen 1997.

Methods	RCT. Duration of study: not reported Follow‐up, days (mean): 770 versus 704. However, major outcomes were compared at 12 months after randomisation
Participants	21 people with CRP, RT 2 years ago, failed medical treatment, and per rectum bleeds at least 3 times a week Sex (M/F): 18/3 Similar groups with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics Dropouts: none
Interventions	Intervention: Heater probe (9) Comparator: Bipolar electrocoagulation probe (12) Treatment with the same probe till the bleeding stopped, mean 4 treatments
Outcomes	Sigmoidoscopies 4 to 6 weekly till bleeds stopped and follow‐up requirements Fall in severe bleeds and the need for follow‐up in both groups. Significant decrease in both groups
Notes	No side effects reported. QoL informally assessed with participant responses, which improved with treatment
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation method not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)	Low risk	Unclear whether participants had been blinded, but as both arms received a similar active intervention it seems unlikely that this would have introduced performance bias
Blinding of outcome assessment subjective	Low risk	Unclear whether participants had been blinded, but as both arms received a similar active intervention it seems unlikely that this would have introduced bias for subjective outcomes
Blinding of outcome assessment objective	Unclear risk	Managing physician was blinded to treatment, however, it was not clearly described whether the research nurse who evaluated and followed all participants was blinded.
Incomplete outcome data: subjective outcomes	Low risk	No loss to follow‐up
Incomplete outcome data: objective outcomes	Low risk	No loss to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Study was published in 1997, so no study protocol available. However, all outcomes prespecified in the methods section were reported in the results section
Other bias	Low risk	No indications of other bias