Prado 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: randomised controlled trial Study grouping: parallel group
Participants	Baseline characteristics Auriculotherapy Age (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): 40 (93%) Sample size: 43 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Placebo Age (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): 44 (94%) Sample size: 47 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Control (wait list) Age (mean ± SD): NR Sex (N (% female)): 42 (98%) Sample size: 43 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Overall Age (mean ± SD): 35 ± 8.4 Sex (N (% female)): 126 (95%) Sample size: 133 Years of experience (mean ± SD): NR Included criteria: The sample consisted of 168 nurses who presented a stress score between 40 and 110 points on the List of Stress Symptoms (LSS). Since few people presented very high stress level, the level was limited to medium and high in order to obtain homogeneous samples. Other inclusion criteria were voluntary participation and availability for the auriculotherapy sessions Excluded criteria: NR Pretreatment: No socio‐demographic NR for primary outcomes. Compliance rate: NR Response rate: NR appears to be 100% Type of healthcare worker: exclusively nurses
Interventions	Intervention characteristics Auriculotherapy Type of the intervention: Intervention type 2 ‐ to focus one’s attention away from the experience of stress Description of the intervention: Two points with calming properties were used, the Shenmen point and the Brainstem The number of sessions: 12 sessions Duration of each session on average: NR Duration of the entire intervention: 6 weeks Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: short Intervention deliverer: NR Intervention form: NR Placebo Type of the intervention: Intervention type 2 ‐ to focus one’s attention away from the experience of stress Description of the intervention: The sham points chosen were External Ear and Face Area The number of sessions: 12 sessions Duration of each session on average: NR Duration of the entire intervention: 6 weeks Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: short Intervention deliverer: NR Intervention form: NR Control (wait list) Type of the intervention: NA Description of the intervention: NA The number of sessions: NA Duration of each session on average: NA Duration of the entire intervention: NA Duration of the entire intervention short vs long: NA Intervention deliverer: NA Intervention form: NA
Outcomes	The List of Stress Symptoms (LSS) Outcome type: ContinuousOutcome
Identification	Sponsorship source: NR Country: Brazil Setting: Hospital Comments: NR Authors name: Juliana Miyuki do Prado Institution: Universidade de São Paulo, Escola de Enfermagem, São Paulo, SP, Brazil Email: fumieibez@gmail.com Address: Leonice Fumiko Sato Kurebayashi Rua Vieira Fazenda, 80, Vila MarianaCEP 04117‐030 – São Paulo, SP, Brazil Time period: 2014
Notes	LSS included in analysis 2.1
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "From the inclusion criteria, the participants were randomized to the three groups by the Random Allocation Software, each group receiving 56 participants. Thirty‐five people left the study. "
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "From the inclusion criteria, the participants were randomized to the three groups by the Random Allocation Software, each group receiving 56 participants. Thirty‐five people left the study. " Difficult to judge whether participants and/or investigators could possibly foresee assignment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "This is a randomized, single‐blind, controlled trial with three groups: experimental auriculotherapy (with points indicated for stress), sham auriculotherapy (with sham points), and control group (without any treatment). The study was conducted with nurses of the Hospital Beneficência Portuguesa in São Paulo, São Joaquim Unit, in 2014. The control group without intervention was a waiting list, and the participants of this group later received the auriculotherapy intervention for the same time and number of sessions."  Participants were blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Participants were blinded and outcomes are self‐reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Judgement Comment: 35 of the 168 randomised participants were lost to follow‐up (21%). Not reported whether lost to follow‐up was at random. Reasons for lost to follow‐up provided.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No trial registration or study protocol reported, nor did we find one online.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Compliance rate and response rate difficult to assess.