Montgomery 1982b.

Study characteristics
Methods	38 participants; 6‐month trial with 2 arms: mianserin placebo Duration of trial: 24 weeks Country: UK Setting: outpatient
Participants	Methods of recruitment of patients: "[...] endogenously depressed patients who were taking part in a comparative antidepressant efficacy study of zimelidine and maprotiline were recruited". (Montgomery 1982a, p. 292) Overall sample size: 38 Diagnosis of borderline personality disorder: DSM‐III Means of assessment: clinical interview Mean age: 35.65 years (SD = no information; range = no information) Sex: 68.42% women Comorbidity: no information Inclusion criteria Patients admitted following a suicidal act Having a history of 2 or more previous documented suicidal acts More than 75% BPD (23 out of 30* by DSM‐III and clinical interview) Exclusion criteria Overt schizophrenia or depression Organic illness
Interventions	Experimental group Treatment name: mianserin Number randomised to group: 29 Duration: 6 months Control/comparison group Comparison name: placebo Number randomised to group: 29 Duration: 6 months Both groups Concomitant psychotherapy: Patients were followed up in a clinic, with back‐up from social workers, community nurses and a crisis intervention team. Concomitant pharmacotherapy: no information Proportions of participants taking standing medication during trial observation period: no information
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: suicidal behaviour, measured by the number of participants in each group with/without act of self‐harm within the 6 months of treatment. Assessed at week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 (EOT) Secondary outcomes: attrition in terms of participants lost after randomisation
Notes	Sample calculation: no information Ethics approval: no information Funding source: unclear funding Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest were reported. Comments from trial authors (limitations): none mentioned
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: insufficient information on methods used to generate random sequence to permit a judgement of low or high risk of bias
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no information provided on allocation concealment to permit a judgement of low or high risk of bias
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: The trial was referred to as being double‐blind, however, insufficient information was given on how blinding of participants and personnel was carried out (packaging of trial medication etc.) and maintained, to permit a judgement of low or high risk of bias.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: The trial was referred to as being double‐blind, however, insufficient information was given on how blinding of outcome assessors was carried out and maintained, to permit a judgement of low or high risk of bias.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Comment: dichotomous outcomes used here were based on the ITT sample; patients who had dropped out were imputed as having the negative outcome. High dropout rate (20 out of 58; Montgomery 1983, p. 787), but reasons not specified, nor to which treatment group the lost patients belonged. Therefore, dropouts could not be imputed in categorical outcomes as having the negative outcome.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no protocol found
Vested Interest (funding and/or author affiliations)	Unclear risk	Comment: no details about funding/sponsoring provided
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: no indication of other bias