Mukherjee 1980.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT
Participants	Setting: LNJP Hospital, New Delhi, India (assumed from author affiliation) Trial dates: not reported (published in 1980) Inclusion criteria: women from an otherwise healthy population whose chief complaint was moderate to severe pain following episiotomy on the first postoperative morning Exclusion criteria: known hypersensitivity to dipyrone and aspirin; receipt of any analgesics 8 hours before entry to the study
Interventions	Aspirin (N = 90 randomised) 500 mg aspirin; single oral dose in identical tablet form Placebo(N = 88 randomised) Placebo; single oral dose in identical tablet form All women: nothing was permitted to be taken orally for the first hour after treatment administration
Outcomes	Adequate pain relief as reported by the woman: A research worker interviewed women at 0.5 hours, and hourly for 6 hours. Women were asked "By how many paise in the rupee is your pain less?"; pain relief was arbitrarily equated as 25% = slight (given a score of 1), 50% = moderate (given a score of 2), 75% = marked (given a score of 3), and 100% = complete (given a score of 4). Mean pain relief scores from 0 to 6 hours were provided in Figure 2, and were used to calculate TOTPAR scores, and to calculate 'Adequate pain relief as reported by the woman' (taken over 6 hours) More than 50% pain relief was also reported Maternal adverse effects: adverse drug reactions
Notes	Funding: not reported Declarations of interests: not reported Additional arms: this 3‐arm trial also assessed dipyrone 500 mg (N = 89); we only included the relevant arms in this review
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "allocated at random"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "approved double‐blind approach, which was strictly adhered to" "identical tablet form"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Reasonable to assume blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No losses or exclusions
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No access to trial protocol to further assess risk selective reporting
Other bias	Low risk	Figures reported for baseline characteristics (such as pain severity, age, weight, and height at baseline), and reported "all three groups were also comparable…"