Study	Reason for exclusion
Chan 1997	Non‐randomized pilot study with 7 patients
Chen 2005	Co‐intervention of ear acupressure was only given to acupuncture group. This trial is the same as the Li 2005 trial with regard to acupuncture method, treatment duration, age range, sex ratio and disease duration of participants, however it has a different control intervention and different results. It is a possible duplicate of the Li 2005 trial
Chu 2009	According to the description on Clinicaltrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00900965), this study, which was ongoing at the time of the original 2006 Cochrane review and has since been completed, involves only one acupuncture treatment and does not measure any of the outcomes relevant to this review (i.e. its purpose is to investigate the effects of acupuncture on rectal sensation and brain activity in patients with IBS)
Ding 2004	The first author Ding was telephoned. She said she could not recall if the random sequence was used and also said that some participants were treated with both acupuncture and western medicine
Fireman 2001	One of the co‐authors, Rafael Carasso, stated (to Eric Manheimer during a telephone interview on December 20, 2011) that participants were assigned to comparison groups according to the order in which they came into the clinic, which is not a randomization procedure
Fu 1993	The second author Cai was telephoned. He said the participants were assigned based on their admission order
Gabuzian 1994	This study did not appear to be eligible based on the translated abstract, but we did not translate the full report to confirm this (language barrier to Russian)
Guo 2010	According to a telephone survey of the first author Guo GL on Jul 22, 2011, the participants were assigned by odd or even hospital record number. This trial was published first in Apr 2010 in Hebei Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and as a duplicate publication in Jun 2010 in Modern Journal of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine
Hou 2011	According to a telephone survey of the first author Hou BG on Dec 1, 2011, the participants were assigned according to their preference
Huang 1999	The trial compared acupuncture plus Chinese medicine plus psychological counselling versus Chinese medicine alone.
Huang 2006	According to the survey from the first author, they referred to a random number table, but some patients were assigned according to their will The authors compared acupuncture with a different form of Chinese medicine which is Tuina (i.e. Acupuncture plus Tuina versus Acupuncture versus Tuina).
Kang 2006	The trial compared ear‐acupressure versus western medication. Ear‐acupressure alone does not meet our inclusion criteria for type of intervention
Kunze 1990	We could not determine whether this study was eligible based on the translated abstract (the full publication was in German and there was a language barrier to German.)
Li 2005	Co‐intervention of ear acupressure was only given to acupuncture group. Note this is a possible duplicate of the Chen 2005 trial
Li 2007	The authors didn't report a measure of overall IBS symptoms, overall IBS response, or health‐related quality of life but only had an improvement measure for each of the individual symptoms (e.g. diarrhea, abdominal pain etc.)
Liao 2000	The author was telephoned and it was confirmed that this was not a real randomized trial
Liu 1995	The author could not recall any of the methods used in the trial so we cannot assume that this was a true randomized trial
Long 2006	The trial compared acupuncture plus bifidobacteria versus bifidobacteria plus patented Chinese medicine versus acupuncture alone, which does not meet our inclusion criteria for type of intervention
Ma 2009	The trial compared warming needle moxibustion plus acupoint injection therapy versus western medicine
Ouyang 2003	The trial compared ear‐acupressure plus pinaverium bromide versus ear‐acupressure alone versus pinaverium bromide alone. Ear‐acupressure alone does not meet our inclusion criteria for type of intervention
Ouyang 2006	According to the description on Clinicaltrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00219505), this study, which was ongoing at the time of the original review, was terminated and not completed
Qian 2011	This trial clearly states in the text, on page 258, column 2, last line, that the patients were not blinded as to whether they got true or sham acupuncture, which is the purpose of using a sham control. Therefore this trial cannot be compared or combined with other sham‐controlled trials.
Shi 2011	According to a telephone survey of the first author Shi ZM on Jul 22, 2011, the participants were assigned casually, not using any specific randomization method. This trial was published first in Oct 2010 in Hebei Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and as duplicate publications in Apr 2011 in Liaoning Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine and in Jul 2011 in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion
Song 2005	According to a telephone survey of the first author Song JY on Jul 23, 2011, the participants were inpatient and were administrated with western medicine. If the symptoms of patients were not improved, they were treated with acupuncture after consultation
Song 2011	The trial compared ear‐acupressure plus otilonium bromide versus otilonium bromide alone. Ear‐acupressure alone does not meet our inclusion criteria for type of intervention
Sun 2009	The trial compared acupuncture plus Chinese medicine versus western medicine
Wang 2002	Complicated intervention: acupuncture with moxa on the tip of the needle, plus intra‐rectum enema with Chinese herb solution
Wang 2007	According to the survey from the first author, patients were assigned according to their will. This trial compared acupuncture versus western medicine plus Traditional Chinese herbal medicine
Wang 2008a	The authors didn't report an outcome for overall IBS symptom severity or health‐related quality of life but only had an improvement measure for each of the individual symptoms (e.g. diarrhea, abdominal pain etc.)
Wang 2008b	We are unable to contact the only author for information about randomization
Wang 2009	The authors used a kind of trigger point therapy which does not meet our inclusion criteria for types of intervention
Wang 2011	The trial used eye‐acupuncture, which is a type of micropuncture that is not considered traditional Chinese acupuncture, and has not been approved popularly
Wu 2004	The trial compared acupuncture plus ear‐acupressure vs. acupuncture alone, which does not meet our inclusion criteria for types of intervention
Wu 2008	The trial compared acupuncture on ST25 versus acupuncture on SP15.
Xiao 2003	According to a telephone survey with the first author Xiao FT on Nov 25, 2011, the participants were assigned based on the doctor’s judgment. The outcome of the trial was recurrence rate which does not meet our inclusion criteria for types of outcome measures
Xiao 2004	Evaluation of the therapeutic effect of acupoint transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)
Xiong 2008b	According to a telephone survey of the first author Xiong JW on Jul 22, 2011, the participants were assigned by alternation. Note: Although the author last name and year is the same as the Xiong X 2008 trial included in our review, they are not the same author or trial
Xu 2009	According to a telephone survey of the first author Xu MF on Jul 21, 2011, the participants were assigned by their preference
Yang 2000	Intervention was Vit B1 point (ST‐36) injection and Chinese massage
Yu 2007	According to the survey from the first author, the patients were assigned according to alternation or rotation. The authors compared acupuncture with a different form of Chinese medicine which is Chinese herbal medicine (i.e. acupuncture plus Chinese medicine versus Chinese medicine versus western medicine.)
Yu 2011	The trial compared ear‐acupressure plus Chinese medicine versus Chinese medicine alone versus ear‐acupressure alone. Ear‐acupressure alone does not meet our inclusion criteria for type of intervention
Zhang 1996	The trial used tapping acupuncture which was not inserted into human body, so it does not meet our inclusion criteria for types of interventions. This trial was published first in 1996 in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion, and as a duplicate publication in 1997 in Journal of Jiamusi Medical College (former name of Heilongjiang Medicine and Pharmacy)
Zhang 2000	According to the telephone survey from the first author Zhang, he said he didn't use any random method of allocation
Zhang 2010	The trial compared acupuncture versus Chinese medicine
Zhang 2011a	According to a telephone survey of the first author Zhang Y on Jul 22, 2011, the participants were assigned by rotation
Zhang 2011b	According to a telephone survey of the first author Zhang HC on Dec 1, 2011, some participants were assigned according to the patients’ preference
Zhao 2003	The trial compared needle acupuncture versus moxibustion
Zheng 2003	According to the telephone survey from the first author Zheng, he stated they used random method of allocation, but he could not recall the details of the generation of random sequence. He also could not explain why the patient numbers of the two groups were not comparable (41 for Bifidobacterium capsule+pinaverium plus acupuncture group, 28 for Bifidobacterium capsule+pinaverium group)