Geavlete 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	randomized single center/Romania
Participants	Study setting primary and recurrent Eligibility criteria patients with suspected NMIBC based on positive urinary cytology and ultrasound Non‐eligibility criteria massive hematuria moderate to severe leukocyturia prior intravesical instillations earlier than ≤ 3 months suspicion of upper urinary tract disease Intervention cohort participants recruited: 181 unifocal/multifocal tumors: 53/89 Comparator cohort participants recruited: 181 unifocal/multifocal tumors: NR
Interventions	Intervention: WLC + BLC followed by WL‐TURBT + BL‐TURBT Comparator: WLC followed by WL‐TURBT Adjuvant instillation therapy: mitomycin C (no further information on dosage)
Outcomes	Outcome(s)* recurrence rate detection rate progression rate postoperative treatment modification false‐positive rate Results median follow‐up: 24 months RFS rate was 31.2% in intervention group vs 45.6% in comparator group recurrence rate at 24 months was 35.4% in intervention group vs 54.0% in comparator group detection rate was 92.2% in intervention group vs 80.3% in comparator group (P = 0.046) progression rate at 24 months was 4.0% in intervention group vs 7.0% in comparator group (P = 0.123)
Funding sources	NR
Declarations of interest	1 author: received honoraria from GE Healthcare when spoke at a company‐sponsored symposia
Contact of study author	Date of contact attempt to first study author: 30 November 2020 Contact status: no reply to date
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "randomized by means of sealed envelopes, thus ensuring allocation concealment by the ‘sequentially‐numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes’ method" Comment: method of sequence generation clearly described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "randomized by means of sealed envelopes, thus ensuring allocation concealment by the ‘sequentially‐numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes’ method" Comment: allocation concealment clearly described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Surgeon	High risk	Quote: "in each case, the urologist performing the procedure was informed on whether HAL‐BLC would be available only after finishing the WLC to ensure maximum attention to the standard investigation" Comment: surgeon unblinded
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Participants/study personnel	Unclear risk	Quote: NA Comment: unclear whether study participants and other study personnel were blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes (all outcomes)	Unclear risk	Quote: "to ensure the complete objectivity of the evaluation, the urologists performing the follow‐up of WLCs were unaware of the diagnostic and treatment modality initially applied in each case" Comment: blinding of study personnel reported only at the time point of WLCs
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Oncological outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "during the follow‐up period, 17 patients in the HAL‐BLC arm and 13 in the WLC arm did not complete the 2 years protocol and were consequently excluded from the trial." Comment: unclear rate (10% to 20%) of participants lost to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: NA Comment: no protocol available
Other bias	Low risk	Quote: NA Comment: no other bias identified