Ghaleiha 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	10‐week parallel study of minocycline + risperidone versus placebo + risperidone
Participants	Inclusion criteria: children 3‐12 years diagnosis of ASD based on DSM‐4 criteria ABC‐I score of at least 12 at baseline presence of behavioural problems such as aggression Exclusion criteria: "Children with concomitant psychotic disorders, severe intellectual disability that made the diagnosis inconclusive (based on clinical judgment and reviewing prior neurocognitive testing and records), other DSM‐IV axis I or II disorders, seizure disorder, a history of alcohol or drug abuse, tardive dyskinesia, administration of antipsychotic medications within the past 6 months, as well as behavior therapy, and the presence of any significant active medical condition were excluded from the study". Setting: psychiatric hospital Dropouts/withdrawals: 2 participants in each group withdrew consent prior to week 5 (1st outcome measurement point) Sample size: 50 (25 each group) Mean age: 7.6 years Gender: minocycline 17/23 male; placebo 18/23 male IQ: details not provided Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I intervention group 21.26 (4.82), comparator group 19.91 (7.20) Concomitant medications: participants were not allowed to be taking antipsychotics concomitantly. Previous medications: details not provided
Interventions	Intervention (minocycline + risperidone): minocycline 100 mg/day + tablet risperidone 1‐2 mg/day as intervention 10 weeks Comparator (placebo + risperidone): risperidone 1‐2 mg/day + capsule placebo as control for 10 weeks. The maximum target dose of risperidone was defined as 1 mg/day for children weighing < 20 kg and 2 mg/day for those weighing ≥ 20 kg
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: ABC‐I (change from baseline) (Aman 1985) AEs Secondary outcomes: none reported
Notes	Study start date: March 2013 Study end date: March 2015 Funding: "This study was supported by a grant from Tehran University of Medical Sciences to Dr. Shahin Akhondzadeh (Grant No. 20288)". Also, "The authors also affirm that there was no source of funding" Conflicts of interest: 'the authors do not have any conflicts of interest" Trial registry: IRCT201302201556N50
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Patients were randomised to receive either minocycline or placebo in a 1:1 ratio using a computer‐generated code.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	The assignments were kept in sealed opaque envelopes until data analysis.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Throughout the study, the person who administered the medications, the rater, the participants, and parents were blind to assignments. Independent people were responsible for treatment allocation and participant interviews.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Placebo was identical to the intervention medication (minocycline) in shape, size, colour, and taste and was dispensed by the investigational drug pharmacist. Throughout the study, the person who administered the medications, the rater, the participants, and parents were blind to assignments. Independent people were responsible for treatment allocation and participant interviews
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	2 participants in each group discontinued (8% each group) and imputation was not used
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcomes reported match protocol
Other bias	High risk	The contact author is also on the ethics committee at the university funding the study. The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for one of the journals in which some of their studies are published.