Larsson 1985.

Study characteristics
Methods	Truly randomised trial (random number generated) Time of randomisation: at end of surgery Double‐blind Location: multi‐centre—5 centres in Sweden (Huddinge, Umea, Stockholm, Skovde, and Molndal) Timing and duration: not stated
Participants	Infertile women undergoing open gynaecological microsurgery Condition: tubal or peritoneal adhesions, or both Surgery performed: adhesiolysis; tubal surgery (cases without adhesions excluded) Pre‐existing adhesions: all women Mean age: 31 years (range 21 to 39) Duration infertility: not stated Infertility work‐up: semen analysis, postcoital test, confirmation of ovulation (not specified), and laparoscopy; some also had hysterosalpingogram, sperm‐mucus penetration test, or both Number randomly assigned: 109 4 exclusions (lost to follow‐up) Number analysed: 105 Timing second‐look laparoscopy: 4 to 10 weeks postoperative Blinding at second‐look laparoscopy: not stated
Interventions	Dextran versus saline Route of administration: intraperitoneal Dosage/volume: dextran 250 mL; 0.9% saline 250 mL Prophylactic antibiotics: yes
Outcomes	Analysed in review Pregnancy rate Method of diagnosis: not stated Duration follow‐up: 12 to 36 months Full‐term pregnancy rate Miscarriage rate Ectopic rate Adhesions at SLL Change in score (ovaries, tubes, fimbriae) Other outcomes Adhesions at SLL Change in score according to anatomical site (total, pouch of Douglas, pelvic sidewall, colon, small bowel, anterior abdominal wall) Change in score according to aetiology of adhesions Tubal patency Laboratory tests
Notes	Adhesion scoring system used Own scoring system based on extent of adhesions (scored from 1 to 4) over tubes, fimbriae, and ovaries (range 4 to 24) 0 = none 1 = minimal 2 = mild (1 or 2 simple thin strands less than 1 cm in width) 3 = moderate (more than 2 adhesions of type 2 or at least 1 solid adhesion) 4 = severe (more than type 3)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "random selection sequence"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Stated study was double‐blinded, but no clear details regarding blinding provided.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: was "double‐blinded," although no further information given. No mention of an independent reviewer or blinding during assessment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing outcome data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Data presented in full for all outcomes specified, however, no study protocol or trial registry identified for comparison
Other bias	Low risk