Liu 2010.

Methods	Allocation: parallel, randomised Blind: not stated Setting: hospital (inpatient), single centre Country: China Length of study: 4 weeks
Participants	Diagnosis: schizophrenia (CCMD‐3) Total N at randomisation = 72 Sex: male 35, female 37 Age (years): mean 38.42, SD 6.15 Length of illness (years): not stated History: not stated Exclusion criteria: patients with severe physical illness; alcohol or drug abusers.
Interventions	ECT group (n = 35): MECT + antipsychotics Content: participants received antipsychotic therapy such as chlorpromazine, clozapine, perphenazine, and risperidone, and also received MECT. The ECT device was Thymatron. Frequency: 3 times a week for MECT; not stated for antipsychotics Course of treatment (MECT): 12 sessions Treatment duration: 28 days Control group (n = 37): Antipsychotics alone Content: participants received antipsychotic therapy such as chlorpromazine, clozapine, perphenazine, and risperidone. Frequency: not stated Treatment duration: 28 days
Outcomes	Mental state: assessed by SAPS, SANS Unable to use: Response to treatment (data not reported)
Notes	Contact information: Shaoyang Psychiatric Hospital, Shaoyang, Hunan, 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.29) 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)	High risk	Comments: The protocol is not available; all outcomes stated in methods other than overall efficiency rate reported in results.
Other bias	Low risk	None obvious.