Mohammadpourhodki 2021.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design Parallel RCT Study dates Duration of follow‐up: 4 weeks Time frame: April to July 2019
Participants	Study characteristics Setting: single‐centre (HD Unit) Country: Iran Inclusion criteria: ability to verbally communicate; 18 to 65 years; history of dialysis for at least 3 months; receiving 3 sessions of HD/week; no allergy to Lavender and Citrus Aurantium; no experience with massage or aromatherapy; not candidate for kidney transplantation at the time of the study; no history of substance abuse; no serious complication in the lower extremities such as diabetic foot ulcer, peripheral neuropathy, and vascular problems based on the physician’s examination Exclusion criteria: withdrawal of dialysis during the study for any reason (such as travel, migration, kidney transplant, and patient death) Baseline characteristics Number (analysed/randomised): intervention group 1 (35/35); intervention group 2 (35/35); control group (35/35) Mean age ± SD (years): intervention group 1 (50.58 ± 14.05); intervention group 2 (50.42 ± 17.44); control group (57.60 ± 16.40) Sex (M/F): intervention group 1 (25/10); intervention group 2 (23/12); control group (20/15) Dialysis type: HD Mean dialysis vintage ± SD (years): overall (3.4 ± 2.0) 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 1 Lavender essential oil Intervention group 2 Citrus Aurantium essential oil Control group No intervention Co‐interventions Not reported
Outcomes	Outcomes reported Fatigue outcome measures used: validation data available Fatigue FSS (Appendix 3) QoL SF‐36 (Appendix 3) Physical and social function Emotional role Bodily pain General health Vitality Mental health Sleep PSQI
Notes	Additional information Funding: none Conflicts of interest/disclosures: none Trial registration identification number: IRCT20180711040432N2 A priori published protocol was reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Block randomisation." Comment: 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: "Not blinded."
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/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
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All participants completed the study. There were no lost to‐follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Protocol was published. 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. There was no source of funding or conflict of interests. No other source of bias were apparent