Katz 1987.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT. 2 arms
Participants	Number of children: 18 control, 18 treatment Sex of children: 24 M, 12 F Age range of children: 6 ‐ 11 years Mean age of children: 8.3 ± 1.68 years Needle procedure: BMA Diagnosis of child: acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) Inclusion criteria: baseline self‐reported pain score > 50 (0 ‐ 100), baseline self‐reported fear score > 4 (1 ‐ 7), PBRS‐R > 4 (0 ‐ 33), nurse rating of child anxiety > 3 (1 ‐ 5) Exclusion criteria: none reported. Setting: Hematology‐Oncology clinic at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, USA
Interventions	1.Hypnosis: Children received training in hypnosis and self‐hypnosis from trained psychologist prior to needle procedure. Hypnotic induction used eye fixation with or without eye closure, active imagery tailored to child’s interests, deep muscle relaxation, and suggestions. Children were cued to use hypnosis during actual procedure. 2. Non‐directed play control: Children engaged in play sessions designed to match the amount of time and attention from a psychologist prior to the needle procedure. No discussions about the child’s illness or treatment were initiated.
Outcomes	Pain measure: Child self‐report: 0 ‐ 100 thermometer Distress measure: Child self‐report: fear self‐report Nurse report of child anxiety: 1 ‐ 5 Likert Scale Behavioural child anxiety: PBRS‐R Adverse events: none mentioned
Notes	We only used data from the first BMA procedure (i.e. post‐treatment 1) Study dates: September 1979 to July 1982 Funding: grant #R01‐6292 from the National Cancer Institute Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomized ‐ stratified by sex ‐ no further details. Insufficient information to permit judgment of 'low' or 'high' risk
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgment of 'low' or 'high' risk
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Study participants  were not blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding of self‐reported outcome assessment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgment of 'low' or 'high' risk
Other bias	High risk	Potential source of bias related to timing of outcome measurement (e.g. sometimes after multiple procedures)