Hargitai 2013.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomized controlled trial, parallel group Loss to follow‐up: not reported Intention‐to‐treat: all participants were analyzed in the groups to which they had been assigned Sample size estimation: with 25 participants in each of 2 groups, a 0.8‐millimeter difference between groups will be recognized by an unpaired t‐test with 80% probability assuming a within‐group standard deviation of approximately 1 mm
Participants	Country: Denmark Setting: hospital Enrollment year: 2012 Baseline characteristics: Topical mydriatics Number randomized: 28 Mean age, years (SD): 76.64 (6.85) Women, n (%): 0 (0) Race, n (%): not reported Preoperative pupillary diameter, mean, mm (SD): 7.30 (1.55) Blood pressure, mean (SD): not reported Alpha‐adrenergic agonists, n (%): 28 Pseudoexfoliation syndrome, n (%): 0 Diabetes mellitus, n (%): 10 Pre‐existing cardiac conditions, n (%): not reported Pre‐ and intraoperative NSAIDs at baseline, n (%): 28 Depot delivery systems Number randomized: 30 Mean age, years (SD): 78.6 (10.35) Women, n (%): 0 (0) Race, n (%): not reported Preoperative pupillary diameter, mean, mm (SD): 7.52 (1.21) Blood pressure, mean (SD): not reported Alpha‐adrenergic agonists, n (%): 30 Pseudoexfoliation syndrome, n (%): 0 Diabetes mellitus, n (%): 10 Pre‐existing cardiac conditions, n (%): not reported Pre‐ and intraoperative NSAIDs at baseline, n (%): 30 Overall Number randomized: 58 Mean age, years (SD): 78.6 (10.35) Women, n (%): 0 (0) Race, n (%): not reported Preoperative pupillary diameter, mean, mm (SD): 7.52 (1.21) Blood pressure, mean (SD): not reported Alpha‐adrenergic agonists, n (%): 58 Pseudoexfoliation syndrome, n (%): 0 Diabetes mellitus, n (%): 20 Pre‐existing cardiac conditions, n (%): not reported Pre‐ and intraoperative NSAIDs at baseline, n (%): 58 Inclusion criteria: male patients taking tamsulosin due to benign prostatic hypertrophy, attending elective cataract surgery Exclusion criteria: previous ocular surgery, posterior synechiae, and the use of drops other than artificial tears Pretreatment: 1‐way ANOVA showed no significant difference between the groups in terms of age
Interventions	Intervention group: oxybuprocaine 0.4%, cocaine 4%, tropicamide 1%, phenylephrine 10%, diclofenac 0.1%, and chloramphenicol 0.5% eyedrops were used preoperatively. Cellulose wicks were prepared and submerged in a mix of the above solutions with 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio. Comparator: oxybuprocaine 0.4%, cocaine 4%, tropicamide 1%, phenylephrine 10%, diclofenac 0.1%, and chloramphenicol 0.5% eyedrops were used preoperatively. Drops were supplied 3 times with 10‐minute intervals.
Outcomes	Primary outcome: pupil diameter (mm), after nucleus delivery, and before IOL implantation Secondary outcome: not reported Measured outcomes: total intraoperative miosis (mm), mean (SD)
Identification	Author name: János Hargitai Institution: Thy‐Mors Hospital Email: janos.hargitai@rn.dk Address: Department of Ophthalmology, Thy‐Mors Hospital, Højtoftevej 2, Thisted7700, Denmark Clinical Trials Registration Number: not reported
Notes	Comments: 30 participants were dilated using the mydriatics cocktail‐soaked sponge (group 1), and 30 participants were dilated using conventional repeated eyedrops regimen (group 2); there was an additional "control" (non‐randomized) group of 31 participants not receiving any α1 adrenergic receptor antagonist medication who also were dilated with mydriatic‐cocktail soaked sponge. Minor (3/30, 2/28, and 1/31 respectively) and major (1/30, 0/28, and 0/31 respectively) complication rate was similar among all groups. Sponsorship source: not reported Conflict of interest: the authors declare that they have no competing interests
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Authors did not describe how the random sequence was generated.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	The study group was subdivided randomly into 2 equal‐sized groups (n = 30), using sealed envelope method.
Masking of participants and personnel (performance bias)	High risk	Masking of participants not described; surgeons were masked.
Masking of outcome assessment (detection bias)	Unclear risk	Identity and masking of outcome assessors not reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Data reported for all randomized participants, except for 2 who were excluded because they could not lie flat.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcomes stated in trial registry same as reported in paper.