Feng 2010.

Methods	Design: RCT with three arms: IDA versus DNR versus MIT Recruitment period: January 2000 to December 2009 Median follow‐up: not stated
Participants	Eligibility criteria: >18 years newly diagnosed non‐M3‐AML Patients randomised (n = 105): IDA arm: n = 35 DNR arm: n = 36 MIT arm: n = 34 Mean age: IDA arm: 47 years (range: 18 to 70 years) DNR arm: 47 years (range: 18 to 69 years) MIT arm: 47 years (range: 19 to 71 years) Gender (male, female): IDA arm: n = 19, n = 16 DNR arm: n = 21, n = 15 MIT arm: n = 18, n = 16 Country: China, single centre
Interventions	IDA arm: IA regimen, 2 cycles IDA: 8 to 10 mg/m²/d, days 1 to 3, IV Ara‐C: 100 to 150 mg/m²/d, days 1 to 7, IV DNR arm: DA regimen, 2 cycles DNR: 40 to 50 mg/m²/d, days 1 to 3, IV Ara‐C: 100 to 150 mg/m²/d, days 1 to 7, IV MIT arm: MA regimen, 2 cycles MIT: 8 to 12 mg/m²/d, days 1 to 3, IV Ara‐C: 100 to 150 mg/m²/d, days 1 to 7, IV
Outcomes	Outcomes and time‐points from the study that are considered in the review: reported: CR not reported: OS, DFS, death on induction therapy, relapse, AEs, quality of life
Notes	Published as a journal article in Chinese Funding: not stated No conflict of interest statement
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "patients were randomly assigned to" Comment: the study probably had an adequate sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Overall survival	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All other outcomes	High risk	Comment: blinding was not explicitly stated
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) OS and DFS	Low risk	Comment: all randomised patients were included in the analyses
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: the study has no registered study protocol. The review authors have no information to permit judgement
Other bias	Unclear risk	No information provided