Lin 2011.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design Quasi‐RCT Study dates Duration of follow‐up: 2 months Time frame: January to March 2007
Participants	Study characteristics Setting: single‐centre (HD centre in Taipei) Country: Taiwan Inclusion criteria: 18 and 65 years; HD > 3 months and they were needled on acupoints for 3 to 5 hours/sitting, 3 times/week; weight gain < 6% between 2 successive HD sessions; sensitivity of their skin to temperature is intact; no infection or hospitalisation for at least one month during the pre‐study assessment period; willing to participate in this research after an explanation and they must submit their letter of consent to this effect Exclusion criteria: not reported Baseline characteristics Number (analysed/randomised): intervention group (36/36); control group (25/25) Mean age ± SD (years): not reported Sex (M/F): intervention group (16/20); control group (15/10) 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 Far‐infrared irradiation (acupuncture) Control group No intervention Co‐interventions: not reported
Outcomes	Outcomes reported Fatigue outcome measures used: validation data available Fatigue Taiwan version of BFI (Appendix 3): assessed before and after the treatment Usual level of fatigue during the past 24 hours Worst level of fatigue during the past 24 hours Fatigue in the last week Fatigue strength rate Disturbance of life General activity Mood Walking ability Normal work Relations with other people Enjoyment of life Meridian equipment Ryodoraku instrument: assessed before and after the treatment Small intestine meridian Large intestine meridian Laboratory results (Hb, albumin, BUN, creatinine): assessed before and after the treatment
Notes	Additional information Funding: not reported 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: "Prior to the intervention process, the selected patients were randomly divided by computer into two groups." Comment: The study was a quasi‐experimental study. Computer generation is considered as low risk of bias. No imbalance between intervention groups was apparent
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Method of allocation concealment was not reported in sufficient detail to permit judgement. However the study used a quasi‐experimental design
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	Quote: "To minimize participants’ misunderstanding of the Brief Fatigue Inventory‐Taiwan Form (BFI‐T), the data were collected mainly via a face‐to‐face survey interview. The participants were allowed to ask any questions about the study at any stage." Comment: 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/investigators 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. Other outcomes were objective
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All participants completed the study and were included into the analyses
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 and conflicts of interest were not reported