Miao 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	Single‐centre RCT with 1‐year follow‐up
Participants	Estimated sample size: 184 Number randomised: 70 Inclusion criteria Age 25–75 years TIA or stroke in the territory of unilateral MCA stenosis 70%–99% stenosis with stenotic length < 10 mm and distal vessel diameter > 2 mm.  mRS score < 3 NIHSS score < 15 Exclusion criteria Acute stroke in the target territory in previous 3 weeks Tandem ≥ 50% stenosis of target MCA Prior angioplasty or stenting at the target vessel Thrombolysis treatment within 24 hours before randomisation Non‐atherosclerotic stenosis
Interventions	ET plus CMT versus CMT alone
Outcomes	Primary outcomes  Ipsilateral stroke, TIA, or death at 30 days and 1 year Secondary outcomes None
Funding source	Funded by the Research Fund of Capital Medical Development (2007–2069).
Notes	Clinical Trial Registration URL: www.chictr.org/en/ Unique identifier: ChiCTR‐TRC‐12001989
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The randomisation numbers were produced by Randlist software (Version 1.2 \Seed: [1497369600]; http://www.randomisation.net), 4 numbers as a block."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Patients were randomised to either the PTAS or medical group." Comment: the study used software that carried out allocations in a closed environment, and nobody knew the allocation until after enrolment had been confirmed.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	As the 2 treatments were very different, blinding of participants and personnel was not possible.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Investigators who did not participate in the enrolment of the patients and were blinded to the treatment assignment..."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	There was a high rate of loss to 1‐year follow‐up (49/70, 30%), and 19.4% of participants randomised to the ET group refused ET.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All study outcomes were prespecified in the registered information.
Other bias	High risk	The study was stopped early; results of an interim analysis showed similar safety and efficacy for CMT and ET. However, the final results could have changed if recruitment had continued.