Ozden 2011.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Method of randomisation: randomisation list Blinding: participants ‐ no, doctor ‐ no, outcome assessors ‐ yes Power calculation: not mentioned Total number of participants: 21 Total number of procedures: 64 Treatment localisation: leg veins Number of exclusions post‐randomisation: none Number of withdrawals and reasons: 5 patients, 3 due to lack of time and 2 intolerability to pain
Participants	Setting: outpatient site Country: Turkey Gender: women Age: mean 42.28 years (range 32 ‐ 60) Inclusion criteria: White women aged between 20 and 60 years with spider leg veins Exclusion criteria: prior history of DVT, previous treatment of leg veins, pregnancy, poor wound‐healing diseases, hypercoagulability and large varicose veins A series of 16 patients with size‐matched superficial telangiectases of the lower extremities were randomly assigned to receive 3 consecutive monthly treatments with the long‐pulsed 1064 nm Nd:YAG on 1 leg and 532‐nm KTP laser irradiation on the other
Interventions	Treatment 1: Nd:YAG laser Treatment 2: KTP laser Participants received treatments with the Nd:YAG laser to vessels on 1 leg and with the KTP laser to the other leg, for up to 3 sessions every 4 weeks Duration of follow‐up: 1 month Use of compression: no compression stocking
Outcomes	The endpoint for laser sessions was determined to be when either visual elimination or darkening of the vessel was observed. Response to treatment was rated on a quartile system: 0 = no clearing; 1 = 1% ‐ 24% clearing; 2 = 25% ‐ 49% clearing; 3 = 50% ‐ 74% clearing; 4 = 75% ‐ 94% clearing; 5 = 95% ‐ 100% Side effects of treatment were also recorded at each treatment and follow‐up visit
Funding sources	No details provided
Declarations of interest	None declared
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Randomization was done by a person not involved in this study, who sent the patients on hand of a randomisation list"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details given
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No details given
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Results were judged visually by 2 experienced (1 independent) physicians on patient examination
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	5 participants: 3 lost to follow‐up and 2 intolerability to pain
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No details given
Other bias	Unclear risk	No details given