Hao 2014.

Methods	Design: parallel RCT Randomisation method: random number table Blinding: no Power calculation: no Dropouts/withdrawals: no
Participants	The participants with gastrointestinal tract and gynaecological cancer with expected survival time of more than 3 months; Karnofsky ≥ 60 Number (treatment/control): 61 (31/30) Mean age (range): 61.13 (35‐80) Gender (M/F): 37/24 Country: Jiangsu province, China Setting: hospital
Interventions	Moxa stick + conventional medicine vs conventional medicine Treatment group Moxa stick Moxa stick on the acupoints RN8 (shenque) and bilateral ST36 (zusanli) for 15 minutes per acupoint, with additional acupoint RN6 (qihai) for those with syndrome of qi deficiency, SP10 (xuehai) for those with syndrome of blood stagnation, RN12 (zhongwan) for those with digestive reactions and SP6 (sanyinjiao) for those with gynaecological tumours, 30 minutes per treatment, once per day, 6 times per week Treatment duration: 60 days (beginning at the same day of chemotherapy) Conventional treatment Dexamethasone and cimetidine, promethazine, tropisetron, and G‐CSF Chemotherapy Control group Conventional treatment Dexamethasone and cimetidine, promethazine, tropisetron, and G‐CSF Chemotherapy
Outcomes	IgA, IgG, IgM, diarrhoea (WHO grade 3 to 4) at the end of treatment
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random number table
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No relevant description
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	1 participant in treatment, and 2 in control group were lost to follow‐up. Such attrition was not considered to bias the results substantially.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Limited outcome measures were reported.
Other bias	Low risk	Baseline characteristic data were comparable.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes	Low risk	No blinding; however, machine‐measured objective outcomes were not influenced substantially