Wade 1997.

Methods	Study design: Randomised controlled trial
Participants	Diagnosis: DSM‐III‐R panic disorder Method of diagnosis: not stated Age: M = 38, SD not provided Sex: 70% female, 30 % male Location: not stated; setting unclear Co‐morbidities: patients with depression, organic brain damage, drug/alcohol misuse and other severe psychiatric or somatic disorders were excluded Rescue medication: treatment with oxazepam was permitted during weeks 1 and 2 (maximum dose 20 mg daily), discontinued during weeks 3 and 4, and prohibited during weeks 5 to 8.
Interventions	Participants were randomly assigned to either: (1) citalopram 10‐15 mg arm (n = 97) Duration: 8 weeks Treatment Protocol: 10 mg, with the option of increasing to 15 mg if efficacy was not seen (2) citalopram 20‐30 mg arm (n = 95) Duration: 8 weeks Treatment Protocol: 20 mg, with the option of increasing to 30 mg if efficacy was not seen (3) citalopram 40‐60 arm (n = 89) Duration: 8 weeks Treatment Protocol: 40 mg, with the option of increasing to 60 mg if efficacy was not seen (4) clomipramine (n = 98) Duration: 8 weeks Treatment Protocol: 60 mg, with the option of increasing to 90 mg if efficacy was not seen (5) placebo (n = 96)
Outcomes	Time points for assessment: baseline, last assessment (no further details provided) Outcomes: 1. number of panic attacks ‐ Clinical Anxiety Scale (CAS) 2. general improvement (Physician's Global Improvement Scale, Patient's Global Improvement Scale) 3. Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAS) 4. Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)
Notes	Date of study: not stated Funding source: not stated Declarations of interest among the primary researchers: None (but authors' affiliations refer to pharmaceutical companies).
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "randomised".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "double blind". No further information provided.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "double blind". No further information provided.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "the primary analysis of efficacy was based upon the relative number of responding patients for the ITT population and by use of the LOCF".
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	All outcomes were reported; data on CAS are reported only in graphs.
Other bias	Unclear risk	One of the authors' affiliation refer to Lundbeck.