Rosenberg 1984.

Study characteristics
Methods	Truly randomised trial (method not stated) Time of randomisation Double‐blinded—participant and primary surgeon (conducting initial surgery and second‐look laparoscopy) Power calculation: no ITT: no Location: single‐centre—Medical College of Virginia Reproductive and Infertility Service Timing and duration: 1 Aug 1981 to 31 July 1982; 1 year
Participants	women scheduled to undergo major abdominal infertility surgical procedures (N = 46) Number undergoing second‐look laparoscopy: 44 (2 women randomly assigned but did not undergo second‐look laparoscopy—no reason stated in published data) Timing second‐look laparoscopy: 6 weeks Blinding at second‐look laparoscopy: yes Exclusion criteria: none stated
Interventions	Dextran 70 versus Ringer's lactate Instilled into peritoneal cavity before closure, after major abdominal surgery
Outcomes	American Fertility Society "Classification of endometriosis" score—adhesions component of score at second‐look laparoscopy Change in score from initial surgery to second‐look laparoscopy
Notes	Standard deviations not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No comment in published text on randomisation method
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocated treatment prepared outside of operating theatre by research pharmacist. Brought to theatre in standardised bottle labelled only with patient's name and substance code
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not clearly stated that women blinded. Surgeon performing initial procedure blinded, however, other members of surgical team not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Initial surgeon performed both initial and SLL outcome assessment and was blinded to allocation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	46 women enrolled and randomised, two did not undergo SLL, however, no information provided regarding the reasons for this
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	Results reported in graphical format without numerical data provided for SDs or standard error of the mean (SEMs)