Brown 2016.

Methods	Allocation: randomised Blinding: double‐blind Controlled: active comparator Centre: single Arm: 2 arms, parallel groups Imputation: BOCF Study dates: 38‐month trial (April 2006 to July 2010)
Participants	Inclusion criteria: CRPS‐I or neuropathic pain and recommendation for pharmacological treatment with gabapentin or amitriptyline by a clinic physician during the patient's intake appointment. Exclusion criteria: unable to speak English, lactose intolerant, pregnant, previously using either gabapentin or amitriptyline for the treatment of CRPS‐I or neuropathic pain or if they were unable to swallow a size “0” gelatin capsule. Children were also excluded if study medications were contraindicated by additional health conditions or the treatment of such conditions, including the regular use of any of the following medications or classes of medications: anticholinergics, antihypertensives, anticonvulsants, H2 receptor antagonists, antidepressants, sympathomimetics, thyroid replacements, antacids, and analgesics. Baseline characteristics N = 34 Age: 7 to 18 years Gender: male (6); female (28) Number randomised: intervention (17); active comparator (17) Number completed: intervention (15); active comparator (14) Setting and location: Chronic Pain Clinic (The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada)
Interventions	Intervention group (N = 17): oral gabapentin 900 mg/day (300 mg x 3). Control group (N = 17): oral amitriptyline 10 mg/day. Study duration: 6 weeks.
Outcomes	Primary outcomes Change in usual pain intensity from baseline to 6 weeks as measured by the Child Health Assessment Questionnaire Secondary outcomes Disruption of sleep, school, social, and sports (Likert scale) Adverse events
Notes	Sources of funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) New Emerging Team (NET) Grant (GHL‐63209).
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The randomization sequence generation was completed by the research support service pharmacist (not involved in patient care) and the allocation list was concealed from the participants and the study team" Quote: "Since some neuropathic pain conditions disproportionately affect boys and girls, randomization was stratified by sex to ensure that equivalent numbers of boys and girls were randomized to each treatment group. The randomization sequence of 1:1 ratio of amitriptyline to gabapentin was a block 4 design with the possible sequence combinations (e.g., AABB, ABAB) assigned a number and then a point on a page of printed random numbers picked"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The research support pharmacy held the allocation sequence schedule, with a copy of participant‐specific medications in sealed manila envelopes available to the research coordinator for emergency purposes or unblinding at the end of the study period"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "To maintain blinding due to differences in dosing frequency for the two study drugs, participants were prescribed one capsule at night (∼20:00 h) for the first 3 days, then added a second capsule in the morning (∼08:00 h) for the next 3 days and then added a third capsule mid‐afternoon (∼14:00 h) for the remainder of the trial. Children randomized to the amitriptyline group received amitriptyline in the evening pill and placebo in the morning and afternoon pills; while children randomized to gabapentin received 300 mg of gabapentin in each pill." Quote: "Both study and placebo medications were made to be similar in composition, odour, colour and taste by over encapsulating the untouched original dosage form with a larger opaque hard gelatin capsule (7.34 ml in length) and filling any space with lactose powder."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: insufficient information provided.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: all participants were accounted for.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: not all planned outcomes were reported; disruption of school, social, and sports not reported.
Size	High risk	Comment: total participants < 50 per treatment arm randomised and completed.
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: no other potential sources of bias.

BOCF: baseline observation carried forward; CPRS‐I: complex regional pain syndrome type 1; MSK: musculoskeletal; NRS: numerical rating scale