Stein 2007.

Methods	Design: proof‐of‐concept‐study; double‐blind, randomised, placebo‐controlled trial Duration of intervention: 14 days (including the up‐titration, treatment and taper phases) Follow‐up: 1, 4 and 8 months Placebo run‐in: no
Participants	Sample size: 48 participants were randomised to propranolol, gabapentin and placebo Mean age: 29.4 (10.10) Gender: 26 males and 22 females Ethnicity: Quote: "The sample was ethnically diverse: 40% Hispanic, 35% White non‐Hispanic, 10% African American, 10% Asian, and 4% Native American" Type of trauma: Quote: "The most common type of injury was a motor vehicle collision followed by falls, burns, pedestrian versus automobile, assault, and other (e.g. surfing)" Diagnostic measure: specified structured or semi structured measurement Inclusion criteria: Quote: "Potential participants were men and women ages 18‐65 who were admitted to the University of California San Diego (UCSD) Level 1 Surgical Trauma Centre during the 39‐month period from October 2001 through December 2004. Admission to this service reflected a severe physical injury requiring specialized, emergent trauma care" Exclusion criteria: Quote: "The most common reasons for exclusion were (a) living outside the region such that home monitoring could not be arranged, (b) too medically unstable to participate, (c) did not speak English, or (d) too old or too young" Drop‐outs: 5/17 for propranolol, 4/14 for gabapentin and 1/17 on placebo, as inferred from number of people assessed for PTSD at the 4‐month follow‐up assessment Number of participants with MDD: data not provided
Interventions	Pharmacological intervention: 14 days of propranolol, gabapentin or placebo, administered within 48 hours of injury to patients admitted to a surgical trauma centre. Propranolol was started at 20 mg for 3 times daily and up‐titrated over 2 days to 40 mg. Gabapentin was started at 300 mg and up‐titrated over 2 days to 400 mg
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: the Acute Stress Disorder Scale (ASDS), the Comprehensive International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D) and the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist–Civilian Version (PCL‐C) Secondary outcomes: not specified
Notes	Industry‐funded: yes. Supported by NIMH grants MH62037 (R21) and MH64122 (K24) to MBS Medication provided by industry: no Any of the authors work for industry: no
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Participants were randomised to receive propranolol, gabapentin or placebo. Quote: "A randomised schedule was set up and maintained by the UCSB Research Pharmacy"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "When a subject was enrolled, the study nurse notified one of the attending physicians on the Trauma Service, who authorized the Research Pharmacy to provide the medication supplies (according to the randomization schedule) to the subject"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All study medications were supplied in identical capsules. Quote: "All study medications were supplied in identical capsules to avoid breaking the blind study"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "The study nurse, who was blinded to treatment allocation, conducted assessments"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	A higher proportion of drop‐outs was observed in the medication groups (propanolol: 29.4% and gabapentin: 28.6%) versus placebo (5.9%). Investigators employed a GEE modelling approach to try and accommodate missing data. No data on reasons for study withdrawal were provided, though. Quote: "And finally, although our rate of follow‐up (≈80% at 4 months) was satisfactory, the possibility of differential drop‐out across groups creates a missing data problem that even the use of GEE analyses may not solve"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	The study protocol was not available for this trial
Other bias	Unclear risk	No other source of bias was identified for this study