Siedy 2010.

Methods	RCT, parallel design
Participants	100 adult participants Elective cardioversion procedures ASA II/III/IV. NYHA I/III/III Coronary centre, Poland
Interventions	Propofol (1 mg/kg bolus iv followed by increments 0.2 mg/kg each) Fentanyl (1 µg/kg iv) followed by etomidate (0.15 mg/kg iv followed by increments 0.03 mg/kg) Aim: general anaesthesia as determined by inability to open eyes on command and lack of eyelash reflex
Outcomes	Unintended apneic episodes Success of cardioversion PONV Pain at site of injection Myoclonus
Results	Propofol vs Fentanyl + Etomidate Hypotension: no definition of hypotension given. Study authors state: "mean values of BP (blood pressure) were significantly lower in the propofol group" Apnoea: 3/50 vs 2/50 Nausea: 1/50 vs 7/50 (P value < 0.05) Vomiting: 0/50 vs 4/50 (P value < 0.05) Pain at injection site: 4/50 vs 11/50 (P value < 0.05) Myoclonus (defined as severe involuntary movements requiring midazolam): 1/50 vs 1/50
Notes	No effect estimates provided with data
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomization took place but no details given
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Major adverse events	High risk	No details of blinding of personnel. Assume anaesthetist was not blinded
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Success of cardioversion	Unclear risk	No details of blinding of personnel/cardiologist
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Minor adverse events	High risk	No details of blinding of personnel. Assume anaesthetist was not blinded
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Time to induction etc/need for resedation.	High risk	No details of blinding of personnel. Assume anaesthetist was not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Major adverse event	Unclear risk	No details of who assessed outcomes and whether blinding took place
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Success of cardioversion	Unclear risk	No details of who assessed outcomes and whether blinding took place
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Minor adverse events	Unclear risk	No details of who assessed outcomes and whether blinding took place
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Time to induction etc./need for resedation	Unclear risk	No details of who assessed outcomes and whether blinding took place
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No apparent losses
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Outcomes reported as in methods section Prepublished protocol not sought
Other bias	Low risk	Baseline characteristics well documented and largely comparable