Lazarus 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design Parallel RCT Study dates Duration of follow‐up: 8 weeks Time frame: not reported
Participants	Study characteristics Setting: single centre Country: India Inclusion criteria: 20 to 80 years; diagnosed with CKD and undergoing HD Exclusion criteria: not reported Baseline characteristics Number (analysed/randomised): intervention group (100/100); control group (100/100) 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 Olive‐oil massage Control group No intervention Co‐interventions Not reported
Outcomes	Outcomes reported Fatigue outcome measures used: validation data available Fatigue FSS (Appendix 3)
Notes	Additional information Funding: none 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	Unclear risk	Quote: "In a randomised double blind placebo controlled study." Comment: Although the study was reported as a double blind study, it was not reported if participants and investigators were blinded to 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 completed the study. There was 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 with multiple eligible outcome measurements (scales and time points). 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 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	Baseline characteristics were not clearly reported. There were neither funding nor conflict of interests