Karadag 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design Parallel RCT Study dates Duration of follow‐up: 30 days Time frame: March and December 2017
Participants	Study characteristics Setting: multicentre (unit of Gaziantep University Sahinbey Research and Application Hospital located in a province in southeastern Turkey) Country: Turkey Inclusion criteria: receiving HD regularly for at least 6 months; being capable of communicating and having no problems of hearing and speech; 18 and 65 years; no smelling problem, no history of eczema, asthma, herbal allergy; no allergy to lavender; not diagnosed with psychiatric disorder; participating in the study voluntarily Exclusion criteria: not reported Baseline characteristics Number (analysed/randomised): intervention group (30/30); control group (30/30) Mean age ± SD (years): intervention group (55.76 ± 13.23); control group (46.43 ± 14.23) Sex (M/F): intervention group (13/17); control group (11/19) Dialysis type: HD Mean dialysis vintage ± SD (years): intervention group (4.5 ± 4.4); control group (3.7 ± 3.8) 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 Lavender oil Control group No intervention Co‐interventions Not reported
Outcomes	Outcomes reported Fatigue outcome measures used: validation data available Fatigue FSS (Appendix 3) Anxiety BAI (Appendix 3)
Notes	Additional information Funding: not reported Conflicts of interest/disclosures: none 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)	Unclear risk	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	Not reported. 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	Fatigue was 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. However, objective and subjective outcomes were assessed
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All participants were included into the analysis. There were no lost to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Information about the protocol and the statistical analysis plan were not reported. Fatigue was reported using multiple eligible outcome measurements (scales, time points). Fatigue was 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	There was no evidence of different baseline characteristics, or different non‐randomised co‐interventions between groups. Funding was not reported