Sindrup 2003.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: cross‐over Duration: each cross‐over period lasted 4 weeks Assessment: baseline, post‐cross‐over period Country: Denmark
Participants	Pain condition: polyneuropathy Population: adults aged 20‐70 with painful polyneuropathy Minimum pain intensity: ≥ 4 on 0‐10 scale Inclusion criteria Aged 20‐70 Symptoms compatible with polyneuropathy present for > 6 months, polyneuropathy diagnosis confirmed by nerve conduction studies Pain intensity median ≥ 4 on 0‐10 scale Exclusion criteria Other pain conditions and severe terminal illness Total participants randomised: 40 Age in years (mean, range): 56 (31‐69) Gender: 9/40 were female Pain duration in months (mean, range): 51 (6‐300)
Interventions	Placebo Inert Identical appearance and matched dosing Double‐dummy design Venlafaxine 225 mg SNRI Fixed dose, forced titration Imipramine 150 mg TCA Fixed dose, forced titration
Outcomes	AEs
Missing data methods	Completer analysis
Funding source	Non‐pharmaceutical: supported by the Danish National Research Council (NASTRA grant no. 42820) and the local research foundation at Odense University Hospital.
Conflicts of interest	NR
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Assignment to one of the 6 possible treatment sequences was random via a computer‐generated randomisation code.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"The study drugs were packed in boxes marked with patient number and treatment period. After the baseline period, the patients were numbered consecutively and were treated with the study drugs with the corresponding randomisation number. Sealed envelopes with treatment sequence for each patient were present at the study sites for emergency situations."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Double‐dummy technique, matching study drugs and package appearance
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Self‐reported outcomes by blinded participants
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	ITT with LOCF Attrition Total: 7/40 (17.5%) Not clear in which arm withdrawals occurred
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol or trial registration found
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias were identified.