Gejervall 2005.

Methods	Open, randomised single‐centre trial performed at the IVF unit of Reproductive Medicine at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Goteborg
Participants	There were 160 women randomised in the study: 80 to the EA (electro‐acupuncture) group and 80 to the CA (conventional acupuncture) group. The average age of the women (± SD) in the control group (n = 80) was 33.9 years (± 3.7) compared to 33.2 years (± 3.6) in the intervention group; the average number of IVF cycles performed was 1.56 (± 0.93) compared to 1.48 (± 0.93). The majority of women had male factor or unexplained subfertility.
Interventions	The study compared electro‐acupuncture at the time of oocyte retrieval (EA group) with conventional analgesia (intravenous alfentanil). Both groups also had a paracervical block performed. Electro‐acupuncture was performed by midwives who had been trained in the IVF unit.
Outcomes	Wellbeing was evaluated with the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Pain and subjective expectations and experiences were recorded on a visual analogue scale (VAS). Time and drug consumption were recorded Pregnancy rate was recorded as secondary outcome
Assisted conception protocols	Standard, long protocol GnRH down‐regulation and the follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) or human menopausal gonadotrophin (hMG)
Notes	Study designed to assess effectiveness of acupuncture as an analgesic
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	‘randomisation was performed by the study coordinator according to a computerized list’
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details given
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Conventional analgesia of I.V. alfentanil used as control analgesia. Therefore both participants and personnel not blinded. Not stated if assessor was blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	160 women randomized; 2 lost to follow up.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No LBR outcome reported.
Other bias	Low risk	None