Firoz 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design‐ randomised, double‐blind, split‐face design, active controlled, parallel 2‐arm, onabotulinumtoxinA versus AbobotulinumtoxinA in glabellar and forehead lines (Poster) Study date‐ no information Study setting‐ no information
Participants	Randomised 74 participants, with mean age of 50 years (32‐65 years). Gender‐ no information Inclusion criteria‐ no information Exclusion criteria‐ no information Severity of disease‐ moderate to severe glabellar lines and raising forehead‐ split face Ethnicity‐ 43.2% Caucasian, 2.8% black, 51.4% Hispanic, 1.4% Asian and 1.4% other
Interventions	Duration of study‐ 24 weeks Intervention OnabotulinumtoxinA (no U specified) 0.4mL; 0.1 mL into the procerus and each corrugator, 0.05 mL/site, four injections in frontalis (N =70) Comparator AbobotulinumtoxinA (no U specified) 0. 4mL; 0.1 mL into the procerus and each corrugator, 0.05mL/site, four injections in frontalis (N =70) Ratio‐ no information
Outcomes	Primary outcome Onset of action Secondary outcomes Duration of action Patient satisfaction Pain during injection
Notes	“Commercial support: None identified”
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Using a random number generator, patients received" page AB210 Comment: We considered low risk of bias
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information Comment: we considered unclear risk of bias due to the authors did not provide the methods used for maintain the allocation concealment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "patients received identical volumes and injection patterns of one product in the right corrugator and frontalis, and the other product in the left." (page AB21) Comment: We considered low risk of bias since the authors adopted proper actions to assure blinding of personnel and patients.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information about outcome assessors blinding Comment: we considered unclear risk of bias
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information about losses Comment: we considered unclear risk of bias
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All prespecified outcomes were reported Comment: we considered low risk of bias
Other bias	Low risk	We considered this study at low risk of other bias