Mohamed 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design Quasi‐RCT Study dates Duration of follow‐up: 3 months Time frame: November to December 2013
Participants	Study characteristics Setting: single‐centre (Hemodialysis Unit at Public Fayoum Hospital, Ministry of Health) Country: Egypt Inclusion criteria: recently diagnosed with kidney failure and requiring HD at least 3 months; patients had to be sedentary for 6 months or more; ≥ 18 years; able to communicate Exclusion criteria: acute heart and lung disease; acute infectious diseases; Hb < 10 g/dL; physical or mental disability preventing the proper performance of the protocol Baseline characteristics Number (analysed/randomised): intervention group (40/40); control group (40/40) Mean age ± SD (years): not reported Sex (M/F): intervention group (18/22); control group (20/20) 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 Educational nursing intervention protocol for 2 weeks Control group Standard nursing instruction and routine hospital care Co‐interventions All adult patients were scheduled for HD
Outcomes	Outcomes reported Fatigue outcome measures used: validation data available Fatigue PFS (Appendix 3): assessed pre and post‐test and after 3 months Behavioural Affective Sensory Cognitive/mood General knowledge in CKD and HD Structured Knowledge Questionnaires Sheet (40 questions; each right answer got one score, while no answer take zero score): assessed pre and post‐test and after 3 months General information about CKD General information about HD Clinical manifestation Diagnostic evaluation Knowledge about nutrition Self–care measures Knowledge about complication Laboratory results (Hb, sodium, potassium, blood urea, creatinine): assessed pre‐ and post‐test and after 3 months
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)	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	Quote: "The patient assessment sheet was filled by the researcher through personal interview." 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. However, objective and subjective outcomes were assessed. It was not stated if the interviewer was blinded to the treatment allocation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Table 3 reported that all participants completed the study. However, it was not clearly stated if some participants discontinued
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