Pointel 1986.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled Method of randomisation: not stated Exclusions post randomisation: none Losses to follow‐up: 4 (4%)
Participants	Country: France Setting: hospital Number: 94 patients Age: mean 49 ± 12 years Gender: 8 M:86 F Inclusion criteria: CVI Exclusion criteria: severe varicose veins requiring an elastic strip, postphlebitic patients, those with unilateral venous insufficiency, those treated with a venoactive drug before the start of the study
Interventions	Treatment: Centella asiatica (TECA) 120 mg: two 30 mg capsules twice a day vs Centella asiatica (TECA) 60 mg: one 30 mg capsule twice a day Control: placebo Duration: 56 days Follow‐up: 56 days
Outcomes	Primary Symptoms of CVI (pain, heaviness) and oedema measured by an ordinal scale (0 to 3) Secondary Venous distensibility measured by plethysmography Side effects
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "The study conducted in four hospitals according to a controlled, randomized, double‐blind (double dummy) study performed on three parallel groups for eight weeks" Comment: no method of randomisation described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no methods of allocation concealment described
Blinding (patients)	Unclear risk	Comment: no information given about methods used for blinding
Blinding (study researchers)	Unclear risk	Comment: no information given about methods used for blinding
Blinding (outcome assessment)	Unclear risk	Comment: no information given about methods used for blinding
Incomplete outcome data	Low risk	Comment: number of participants in each group described, along with inclusion and exclusion criteria and important characteristics for participants. In addition, study author reported the number of adverse events that occurred, the number of participants who withdrew prematurely and reasons for dropping out
Selective reporting	Low risk	Comment: no protocol identified, and no differences between outcomes reported in the methods section and those reported in the results section
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: none detected