Park 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design‐ randomised, double‐blind, split‐face design in crow's feet lines and masseter Study date‐ no information Study setting‐ no information
Participants	Randomised 56 participants, with mean age of 43.4 years, range 23‐69 years. Gender: 94.6% female, 5.4% male Inclusion criteria Patients complaining of periocular wrinkles Exclusion criteria Patients who had been treated with filler, BT injection, or other photo rejuvenation procedure within 6 months before enrolment Patients were not permitted to use topical tretinoin or other retinol‐containing cosmetics during and after treatment until the end of the study. Pregnancy, active nursing Pre‐existing neuromuscular conditions History of drug allergy or any other serious medical disorder, and medications which can be affected by BontA injection (e.g. aminoglycosides, penicillamine, quinine, calcium channel blocker, and anticoagulant drugs, etc) Severity of disease‐ crow's feet lines, masseter Ethnicity‐ no information
Interventions	Duration of study‐ 16 weeks Intervention IncobotulinumtoxinA (7.5 U), 3 points (N = 56) Comparator OnabotulinumtoxinA (7.5 U), 3 points (N = 56) Ratio‐ 1:1 (IncobotulinumtoxinA:OnabotulinumtoxinA)
Outcomes	Primary outcome Investigator assessment of maximal contraction at week 1 and 16. Difference of FWS by investigator week 1 and 16 Secondary outcomes Onset time Patient FWS maximum contraction in weeks 1 and 16 Visual analogic scale by patient weeks 1, 4 and 16 Adverse events
Notes	Quote: "Authors do not have any kind of conflict of interest regarding this study"
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "a randomised,double‐blind" page 326 Comment: we considered this unclear risk of bias because the authors did not explain how they randomised the participants
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information Comment: we considered this unclear risk of bias due to the authors did not explain the methods used to maintain the allocation concealment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "double‐blind, split‐face" page 326 Comment: we considered this unclear risk of bias because the authors did not explain how they blinded the participants
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "double‐blind,split‐face" page 326 Comment: we considered this unclear risk of bias because the authors did not explain how they blinded the participants
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "in the periocular rhytides group 56 subjects completed the study" page 328 Comment: we considered this unclear risk of bias because the authors did not explain the reason of drop outs
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All prespecified outcomes were reported Comment: we considered this low risk of bias
Other bias	Low risk	We considered this study at low risk of other bias