Knott 2006.

Methods	Allocation: randomised. Blinding: double‐blind. Duration: 2 hours. Settings: conducted in the ED of a large Australian metropolitan university hospital.
Participants	Diagnosis: marked agitation, required chemical restraint (about 66% 'mental illness'). N = 170. Age: range 18 to 65 years. Sex: unspecified. History: aged judged to be 18 to 65 years (inclusive), exhibited marked agitation that required chemical restraint (decision of consultant (attending) emergency physician or a senior accredited resident of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine). Excluded: people with known hypersensitivity to either drug, known pregnancy or readily reversible causes for the agitation (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, hypoxia, hypoglycaemia). If treating physician believed agitation was due to acute alcohol withdrawal, participant excluded because this condition is particularly amenable to treatment with benzodiazepines.
Interventions	1. Droperidol5 mg IV. N = 86. 2. Midazolam5 mg IV. N = 84.
Outcomes	Global state: time to sedation, need for subsequent sedation within 60 minutes of initial (adequate) sedation. Adverse effects: ECG, corrected QT (QTc) interval on a 12‐lead ECG. Physiological: pulse rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation. Loss to follow‐up.
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Randomisation was determined from random‐number tables". Response: randomisation probably done.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "These solutions were packaged in identical vials and randomly assigned to serially numbered study packs". Response: low risk of selection bias.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "patients and staff remained blinded to which drug was used throughout each patient’s stay". Response: blinding probably practiced.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "and the codes remained with pharmacy until the study was complete". Response: blinding of the outcome assessment probably done.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "One hundred seventy patients were enrolled by study‐pack allocation. Of these, 17 packs were lost so that data on 153 patients were available for analysis". Response: 17 study packs were lost. It is unknown whether these were selected and discarded unused or used for sedation, with all documentation subsequently lost.