Ronnevik 1987.

Study characteristics
Methods	Parallel design (2 arms) Country: Norway Follow‐up period: 24 hours
Participants	Randomly assigned: N = 68 Disopyramide group: 49% (33/68) Lidocaine group: 51.4% (35/68) Age, years Disopyramide group: 61.5 Lidocaine group: 63.2 Gender, male, % (n/N) Total group: 76.4 (52/68) Disopyramide group: 76 (25/33) Lidocaine group: 77.1 (27/35) Inclusion criteria < 75 years of age, both genders Pairs or R‐on‐T premature ventricular contractions Exclusion criteria Congestive heart failure with basal pulmonary rales > 10 cm High‐degree atrioventricular block (second‐degree Mobitz type II or third‐degree) Hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg) Renal or hepatic insufficiency Known sensitivity to lidocaine or disopyramide Treatment with other antiarrhythmic drugs, except beta‐blockers or digitalis
Interventions	Disopyramide: intravenous bolus of 150 mg (100 mg to persons < 60 kg), followed by a constant infusion of 30 mg/h for 24 hours Lidocaine: intravenous bolus injection of 100 mg (75 mg to persons < 60 kg), followed by a constant infusion of 3 mg/h for 24 hours Co‐interventions Digitalis (dose not stated) Diuretics (furosemide dose/24 h)
Outcomes	Death Ventricular arrhythmias
Notes	A priori sample size estimation: not reported Sponsor: not reported Trial conduction dates: not stated
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"...were randomised to disopyramide and..." (page 30) Insufficient information about the sequence generation process to permit judgement of ‘low risk’ or ‘high risk’
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement of ‘low risk’ or ‘high risk’
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information about the blinding level process to permit judgement of ‘low risk’ or ‘high risk’
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information about the blinding level process to permit judgement of ‘low risk’ or ‘high risk’
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Withdrawals from study Overall: 15% (10/68) Disopyramide: 15.1% (5/33) Reasons Hypotension Pulmonary congestion Sinoatrial block Sustained ventricular tachycardia Lidocaine: 14.2% (5/35) Reasons Confusion Hypotension High‐degree atrioventricular block Sustained ventricular tachycardia
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The study protocol is not available, but it is clear that published reports describe all expected outcomes, including those that were pre‐specified (convincing text of this nature may be uncommon)
Other bias	High risk	Design bias (Porta 2008)