Goëau‐Brissonnière 1987.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT
Participants	100 people undergoing elective surgery, excluding amputation, vaginal, proctological, urological, and gynaecological procedures, in France between January and July 1986
Interventions	Group 1: preoperative hair removal with a razor (n = 51) Group 2: preoperative hair removal with depilatory cream (n = 49) Product details: the razor was used with a wet shave, the cream was Immac. Timing of hair removal: the evening before surgery. Hair removed by: nursing staff. Venue for hair removal: not reported.
Outcomes	Primary outcome: clinical evidence of wound infection assessed by a doctor at day 2 and day 5 postoperatively. Infection defined as redness, swelling, pus, and positive swab culture. Secondary outcome: quality of skin preparation assessed by the surgeon, the theatre nurse, and the participant.
Notes	Paper published in French. No funding sources mentioned. No details of conflict of interest.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Patients were taken at random using a table of random numbers" Comment: probably suitable randomisation technique.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported. Comment: unclear whether allocation was concealed.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Care providers blinded	Unclear risk	Not reported. Comment: unclear whether care providers were blinded to intervention allocation.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Participants blinded	High risk	Not reported. Comment: participants would have been aware of hair removal method.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Infection was noticed. . . by a doctor who was not aware of which type of skin preparation was used" Comment: blinding of assessors reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) ITT analysis undertaken	Unclear risk	Not reported. Comment: no discussion of whether participants were analysed in groups to which they had been allocated.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Drop out rate acceptable	Low risk	No participants appeared to have dropped out from the study. Comment: 100 participants reported in results.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Main outcomes reported. Comment: unlikely to be affected by reporting bias.
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: participant groups were equal or similar.