Lundorff 2001.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised trial (computer‐generated schedule) Third party–blind Multi‐centre: 5 European centres Time of randomisation: at the time of the procedure Power calculation: no
Participants	14 females, 42 years of age, undergoing laparotomy were included; women with systemic disease or inflammatory pelvic condition or receiving any other form of adhesion prevention agent were excluded 77 women were analysed, not clear how many women were randomly assigned Not clear whether intention‐to‐treat analysis was used
Interventions	Hyaluronic acid versus Ringer's lactate Route of administration: intraperitoneal Dosage/volume: 300 mL of Intergel or Ringer's lactate Prophylactic antibiotics: no Second‐look laparoscopy performed 6 to 12 weeks after initial procedure
Outcomes	Analysed in review Presence of adhesions at second look Improvement or deterioration in adhesion scores at second look Change in mean adhesion score Other outcomes Severity and extent of adhesions mAFS score categorised by surgical procedure Pregnancy rates: no
Notes	Adhesion scoring system used mAFS Funded by Lifecore Biomedical Inc
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "At the time of initial surgical procedure, patients were assigned the next available study number corresponding to study device or control solution as determined by the randomization schedule"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Study device or control solution was maintained in a sealed carton until decision to enrol the participant was made
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Initial surgical team not blinded to allocation. Not clearly stated whether women were blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Third party–blinded review of videotaped second laparoscopy to determine outcome data
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	77 women completed study. No comment on total number randomly assigned
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	High risk	Standard deviations for mean adhesion scores appear to be inaccurate for a study with so few women