Hasankhani 2013.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design Parallel RCT Study dates Duration of follow‐up: 30 days Time frame: not reported
Participants	Study characteristics Setting: single centre (Bu‐Ali Hospital in Ardabil, in Iran) Country: Iran Inclusion criteria: fatigue scores > 3; ability to communicate; ≥ 18 years; at least 3 months of dialysis and the lack of scarring; abnormal redness and swelling at the waist Exclusion criteria: fatigue score ≤ 3; suffered from acute diseases such as fevers, colds and infections; severe pain and heart disease, respiratory, liver, cancer and mental disorders such as depression or with surgery operation Baseline characteristics Number (analysed/randomised): intervention group (not reported/30); control group (not reported/30) Mean age ± SD (years): not reported Sex (M/F): not reported Dialysis type: HD Dialysis vintage (years) (mean ± SD): not reported Comorbidities CVD: not reported Diabetes: not reported Hypertension: not reported Depression (clinician diagnosis): not reported
Interventions	Intervention classification Non‐pharmacological intervention Indication: study targeting fatigue Intervention group Slow‐stroke back massage Control group Usual care Co‐interventions Not reported
Outcomes	Outcomes reported Fatigue outcome measures used: validation data available Fatigue PFS (Appendix 3): assessed at starting, days 15 and 30 Behavioural Emotional Sensory Cognitive
Notes	Additional information Funding: Tabriz University of Medical Sciences Conflicts of interest/disclosures: not reported Trial registration identification number: not reported A priori published protocol: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Samples were selected at random." Comment: Sequence generation methods were not reported in sufficient detail to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method of allocation concealment was not reported in sufficient detail to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "The control group in the past four weeks, they received usual care and they were not aware from massage therapy by the intervention group." Comment: Not reported if investigators and all participants were aware on the treatment assigned. However, interventions were different and participants and/or investigators could be aware of the treatment assigned
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	The outcomes were assessed with an appropriate measure, without differences between groups. However, subjective measures were used, it was not stated whether outcomes were assessed without knowledge of treatment allocation, and knowledge of treatment assignment may have influenced reporting. Participant beliefs about the superiority/inferiority of either intervention could have influenced their assessment of the outcome, but there was no evidence that this was likely
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	The number of patients who completed the study was not clearly stated. It was unclear if there was evidence that the results were not biased by missing outcome data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Information about the protocol and the statistical analysis plan were not reported. It was not reported if multiple eligible outcome measurements (scales and time points) were pre‐specified. It was unclear if the reported approach to analysing this outcome was pre‐specified or influenced by the results. Fatigue at the end of treatment was not reported in a format that was extractable for meta‐analysis. All outcomes that should be addressed (fatigue, cardiovascular disease, and death) were not reported
Other bias	Unclear risk	No data were available to assess the possible imbalance between groups. Funding was unlikely to influence the data analysis and reporting but conflicts of interest were not reported