Resnick 1984.

Methods	Allocation: unclear ‐ 'code in pharmacy', probably randomised. Design: unspecified. Blinding: double ‐ identical vials. Duration: 24 hours (re‐evaluated at 15 minutes after the initial injection and at 30 minute intervals for 3 hours). Settings: ED and Psychiatric Crisis Unit, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland.
Participants	Diagnosis: psychotic ‐ unspecified. N = 27. Age: range 18 to 65 years. Sex: unspecified. History: admitted to ED of psychiatric unit with symptoms of acute agitation and achieved a score of ≥ 17 on a subset of 6 categories on the BPRS. Excluded: people who were intoxicated; had known sensitivity to droperidol or haloperidol; or showed evidence of active renal, hepatic or cardiac disease.
Interventions	1. Droperidol5 mg IM. N = 11. 2. Haloperidol5 mg IM. N = 16.
Outcomes	Global state: needing additional injection, time to control, BPRS. Adverse effects. Adverse effects: EPS. Vital signs: blood pressure, pulse, respiration (no data) ‐ unable to use.
Notes	Predefined levels of BPRS (subset ‐ anxiety, tension, mannerisms and posturing, hostility, unco‐operativeness, excitement) to a score of > 15 used to instigate reinjection.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "...haloperidol on a randomised basis from identical appearing vials..." Response: probably randomised.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Packages of medication were identified only by a code which was kept in the pharmacy until the conclusion of the study." Response: unclear whether and how allocation concealment was assured.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "a double‐blind clinical comparison of droperidol and haloperidol was undertaken". Response: personnel and participants were probably blind to the interventions.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unclear if blinding of outcome assessment was carried out.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Of the 16 patients in the haloperidol group, 3 required a single injection and 13 required two or more injections... In droperidol group, 7 of the 11 patients required one injection and 4 required two injection". Response: low risk of attrition bias as the number of people initially randomised were all included in the final analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All the stated outcomes were reported.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Unclear.