Shafti 2010.

Study characteristics
Methods	8‐week trial with 2 arms: olanzapine haloperidol Duration of trial: 8 weeks Country: Iran Setting: inpatient
Participants	Method of recruitment of participants: The participants were inpatients. Not otherwise specified Overall sample size: 28 Diagnosis of borderline personality disorder: DSM‐IV Means of assessment: no information Mean age: 29.49 years (SD = no information; range = no information) Sex: 100% women Comorbidity: none Inclusion criteria: female gender Exclusion criteria: any prominent comorbid mental disorder
Interventions	Experimental group Treatment name: olanzapine Number randomised to group: 14 Duration: 8 weeks Control/comparison group Comparison name: haloperidol Number randomised to group: 14 Duration: 8 weeks Both groups Concomitant psychotherapy: not allowed Concomitant pharmacotherapy: not allowed Proportions of participants taking standing medication during trial observation period: no other concurrent psychotropic medication during testing
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: mental health status (functioning), measured by CGI‐S and BPRS. Assessed at baseline and at week 8 (EOT) Secondary outcomes Anger, measured by Buss‐Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI). Assessed at baseline and at week 8 (EOT) Attrition Adverse effects, measured by use of laboratory values. Assessed at baseline and at week 8 (EOT) and spontaneous reporting
Notes	Sample calculation: yes Ethics approval: yes Funding source: no funding received Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest were reported. Comments from trial authors (limitations): "Small size of the samples, short duration of the trial, and sex‐based sampling were among the weaknesses of this trial". (Shafti 2010, p. 46)
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: No information on method for random sequence generation to permit a judgement of low or high risk of bias
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: Insufficient information on concealment of random sequence allocation to permit a judgement of low or high risk of bias
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: The article referred to the trial being double‐blind, however, there was insufficient information on how blinding of participants and personnel was carried out 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 article referred to the trial being double‐blind, however, there was insufficient information 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: No attrition
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: No protocol found
Vested Interest (funding and/or author affiliations)	Low risk	Comment: No conflicts of interest reported
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: No other sources found