Mohamed 2013.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design Parallel RCT Study dates Duration of follow‐up: 12 weeks Time frame: not reported
Participants	Study characteristics Setting: multicentre (2 tertiary care hospitals affiliated with an academic centre) Country: not reported Inclusion criteria: patients ≥ 18 years with type 2 diabetes undergoing HD Exclusion criteria: not reported Baseline characteristics Number (analysed/randomised): intervention group 1 (not reported/15); intervention group 2 (not reported/19) Median age, IQR (years): intervention group 1 (73, 45 to 88); intervention group 2 (65, 35 to 95) Sex (M/F): intervention group 1 (9/6); intervention group 2 (11/8) Dialysis type: HD Median dialysis vintage, IQR (years): intervention group 1 (2.83, 1.0 to 6.58); intervention group 2 (1.42, 0.42 to 8.0) Comorbidities CVD: not reported Diabetes: intervention group 1 (15/15); intervention group 2 (19/19) Hypertension: not reported Depression: not reported
Interventions	Intervention classification Pharmacological intervention Indication: study reporting fatigue Intervention group 1 Higher dialysate glucose concentration baths: 11 mmol/L Intervention group 2 Standard dialysate glucose concentration baths: 5.5 mmol/L Co‐interventions Not reported
Outcomes	Outcomes reported Fatigue outcome measures used: validation data available HbA1c: assessed at baseline and at week 12 HRQoL RAND SF‐36 (including fatigue assessment): assessed at baseline and at week 12 General component Social function
Notes	Additional information Funding: not reported Conflicts of interest/disclosures: not reported Trial registration identification number: not reported A priori published protocol: not reported Abstract
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	Quote: "Participants were randomised in an open‐label fashion." Comment: An open‐label study was considered as high risk of bias
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: "One patient withdrew in the third week from the higher DGC group." Comment: 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. Outcomes information were not reported in sufficient detail to permit judgment. 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 and conflicts of interest were not reported