Neuzillet 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	randomized multicenter (2 centers)/France
Participants	Study setting primary Eligibility criteria patients with primary NMIBC based on cystoscopy and positive urinary cytology Non‐eligibility criteria suspicion of MIBC, upper urinary tract disease, or massive hematuria Intervention cohort participants recruited: 72 unifocal/multifocal tumors: NR/NR Comparator cohort participants recruited: 79 unifocal/multifocal tumors: NR/NR
Interventions	Intervention: WLC + WL‐TURBT followed by BLC + BL‐TURBT Comparator: WLC followed by WL‐TURBT Adjuvant instillation therapy: NA
Outcomes	Outcome(s) recurrence rate detection rate Results median follow‐up: 6 weeks Recurrence rate: 20 participants with BLC and 26 participants with WLC Detection rate: average difference on first TURBT for BLC vs WLC was + 0.4 (P = 0.35); in second TURBT + 0.54 (P = 0.19)
Funding sources	NA
Declarations of interest	NA
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: "based on a computer‐generated random sequence (1:1), sequentially numbered individual sealed envelopes were prepared by an independent statistician with the group the relevant patient was to be assigned, i.e., a first TURB with WLC and PDD (hexaminolevulinate [HAL]arm) or WLC alone (control arm). Randomization was done the day before the first TURB." Comment: method of sequence generation clearly described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "based on a computer‐generated random sequence (1:1), sequentially numbered individual sealed envelopes were prepared by an independent statistician with the group the relevant patient was to be assigned, i.e., a first TURB with WLC and PDD (hexaminolevulinate [HAL]arm) or WLC alone (control arm). Randomization was done the day before the first TURB" Comment: allocation concealment unclear
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Surgeon	High risk	Quote: NA 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: NA Comment: unclear whether study personnel were blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Oncological outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "excluded from follow‐up n=2 and n=2, respectively (see figure)" Comment: low rate of participants (< 10%) 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