Wang 2002.

Methods	Parallel‐group randomized trial, conducted in United States. Study dates not reported.
Participants	190 children (7 ‐ 16 y) undergoing general anaesthesia and outpatient surgical procedures. Exclusions: ASA physical status higher than II and people with a history of developmental delay or prematurity. 3 children were excluded from study because of major study protocol violations.
Interventions	Group 1: after induction, intravenous saline was given. Acupuncture at P6 acupoints on both arms was performed before end of surgery. Injection of 0.2 mL of 50% dextrose using a 1 mL tuberculin syringe with a 25‐gauge needle at a depth of 5 to 7 mm from skin (n = 50). Group 2: after induction, droperidol 10 ug/kg IV was given. Superficial skin prick at the P6 acupoint was performed before end of surgery (n = 49). Group 3: after induction, intravenous saline was given. Sham point acupuncture at the dorsum of arms was performed before end of surgery. Injection of 0.2 mL of 50% dextrose using a B‐D 1 mL tuberculin syringe with a 25‐gauge needle at a depth of 5 to 7 mm from skin (n = 43). Group 4: after induction, intravenous saline was given. Superficial skin prick at the P6 acupoint was performed before end of surgery (n = 45).
Outcomes	Nausea (0 ‐ recovery room), vomiting (0 ‐ recovery room), risk of rescue antiemetic drug.
Notes	Rescue antiemetic was ondansetron IV 0.1 ‐ 4 mg/kg. Groups 3 and 4 were combined and considered as a sham group. No puncture site redness or irritation noted in any of the groups. Late outcomes (discharge to first day after surgery) also reported. No data on outcomes (0 ‐ 24 h) according to author. Funding source from Foundation of Anesthesia Education and Research, Society of Pediatric Anesthesia and National Institutes of Health (NICHD R01HD37007‐01). No details about any declarations of interest among authors.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Yoking randomization (based on computer‐generated list) was used for equal distribution of variables that are known to affect the outcome.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information.
Blinding of patients (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Authors took adequate steps to make interventions appear similar. "Children, parents, surgeons, anesthesiologists, PACU nursing staff, and the research assistant, were all blinded to group assignment".
Blinding of healthcare providers (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"Children, parents, surgeons, anesthesiologists, PACU nursing staff, and the research assistant, were all blinded to group assignment".
Blinding of outcome assessor (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"Children, parents, surgeons, anesthesiologists, PACU nursing staff, and the research assistant, were all blinded to group assignment".
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Details about withdrawals were given. No missing data reported for 187 children analysed.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All expected outcomes reported.
Other bias	Low risk	Baseline characteristics were comparable. "There were no differences among the various study groups in regard to baseline demographic characteristics such as age and history of PONV".