Lin 2014.

Methods	Allocation: parallel, randomised Blind: not stated Setting: hospital (inpatient), single centre Country: China Length of study: 8 weeks
Participants	Diagnosis: treatment‐resistant schizophrenia (ICD‐10) Total N at randomisation = 78 Sex: male 49, female 29 Age (years): mean 38.25, SD 1.48 Length of illness (years): mean 6.92, SD 1.38 History: poor social function; without history of drug abuse. Exclusion criteria: patients who are allergic to treatment medications; pregnant women and lactating women; patients with severe chronic illnesses, hypotension, or epilepsy; patients with heart, liver, or kidney dysfunction; patients who do not co‐operate with the treatment; patients with incomplete clinical data.
Interventions	ECT group (n = 39): MECT + ziprasidone Content: the initial dose of ziprasidone was 20 mg/d, increased to 80 mg/d or adjusted according to participant's condition. Participants also received MECT therapy. Frequency: not stated Course of treatment (MECT): not stated Treatment duration: 8 weeks Control group (n = 39): ziprasidone alone Content: the usage and dosage of ziprasidone was same as above. Frequency: not stated Treatment duration: 8 weeks
Outcomes	Mental state: assessed by BPRS Adverse events
Notes	Contact information: Second Department, Fourth People's Hospital of Urumqi, China
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "...were divided randomly into two groups..." (p.202) Comments: The author described a random component in the sequence generation process, but no details were provided on randomisation method.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comments: The author did not describe the allocation concealment. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk'.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comments: The participants and personnel could not be blinded as 1 group did not use ECT, and no sham‐ECT was used.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comments: The author did not describe the blinding of outcome assessment. Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'low risk' or 'high risk'.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comments: No missing outcome data.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comments: The protocol is not available; all outcomes stated in methods reported in results.
Other bias	Low risk	None obvious.