Li 2014b.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design Parallel RCT Study dates Duration of follow‐up: 12 weeks Time frame: 2010 to 2012 (months were not reported)
Participants	Study characteristics Setting: multicentre (renal units of two local regional hospitals in Guangdong province, China) Country: China Inclusion criteria: Mandarin‐speaking; able to communicate; access a telephone after discharge; agreed to participate Exclusion criteria: receiving intermittent PD or HD; planned admissions for special treatment procedures; patients with Tenckhoff catheters in situ < 3 months; psychosis or dementia; dying or unable to communicate; transferred to another unit during their stay in hospital Baseline characteristics Number (analysed/randomised): intervention group (69/80); control group (66/80) Mean age ± SD (years): intervention group (57.4 ± 12.8); control group (55.2 ± 11.9) Sex (M/F): intervention group (42/27); control group (37/29) Dialysis type: PD Mean dialysis vintage ± SD (years): intervention group (3.2 ± 2.4); control group (3.5 ± 2.2) Comorbidities CVD: not reported Diabetes: intervention group (33/69); control group (27/66) Hypertension: not reported Depression (clinician diagnosis): not reported
Interventions	Intervention classification Non‐pharmacological intervention Indication: study targeting fatigue Intervention group Post‐discharge nurse‐led telephone support for 6 weeks Control group Routine hospital discharge care Co‐interventions Not reported
Outcomes	Outcomes reported Fatigue outcome measures used: validation data available HRQoL Chinese version of the KDQOL‐SF: assessed at baseline before discharge, 6 and 12 weeks after discharge Symptom/problem Effect on kidney disease Burden of kidney disease Cognitive function Quality of social interaction Sexual function Work status Social support Staff encouragement Physical functioning Role‐physical Patient satisfaction Energy/fatigue Sleep Pain General health perception Emotional well‐being Role‐emotional Social function Overall health Blood chemistry (blood urea, creatinine, sodium, potassium, phosphate, albumin): assessed at baseline before discharge, 6 and 12 weeks after discharge Complication control: assessed at baseline before discharge, 6 and 12 weeks after discharge Readmission: assessed at baseline before discharge, 6 and 12 weeks after discharge Clinic visit rates: assessed at baseline before discharge, 6 and 12 weeks after discharge Adverse events: assessed until the end of treatment Hospitalisation: assessed until the end of treatment Death: assessed until the end of treatment
Notes	Additional information Funding: supported by Outstanding young talents training project of Guangdong Province (Grant No. LYM11035) and the Guangdong Natural Science Foundation, China (Grant No. S2011040005590) 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)	Low risk	Quote: "The patients were assigned to the study or control group using fifty sets of computer‐generated random numbers." Comment: Computer generation is considered as low risk of bias. No imbalance between intervention groups was apparent
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	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. However, objective and subjective outcomes were assessed
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "The 160 patients who joined the study were randomly assigned to either the study or control group. There were 80 patients in each of the treatment arms. At week 12, 69 of the 80 (86.3%) study patients and 66 of the 80 (82.5%) controls had completed the follow‐up questionnaires. A total of 135 patients completed the protocol and were included in the analysis (Figure 1)." Comment: 69/80 participants in the intervention group and 66/80 participants in the control group completed the study (> 5% lost to follow‐up, without differences between groups). Reasons for discontinuations seemed to be not related to the treatment allocation
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	Low risk	There was no evidence of different baseline characteristics, or different non‐randomised co‐interventions between groups. Funding was unlikely to influence the data analysis and authors had no conflicts of interest. The study seemed to be free from other source of bias