Wang 2014.

Methods	Design: parallel RCT Randomisation method: random number table Blinding: no Power calculation: no Dropouts/withdrawals: no
Participants	People with gastric cancer with expected survival time of > 3 months; Karnofsky ≥ 60 They also needed to meet the criteria of Chinese medicine syndrome of insufficiency of heart and spleen. Number (treatment/control): 72 (37/35) Mean age: 52.7 Gender (M/F): 42/30 Country: Zhejiang province and Shanghai city, China Setting: hospital
Interventions	Indirect moxa cone on herbal paste vs conventional medicine Treatment group Indirect moxa cone on herbal paste Indirect moxa cone on herbal paste, made from Astragali Radix (huangqi), Angelicae Sinensis Radix (dangdui), Ginseng Radix et Rhizoma (renshen), Atractylodis mMacrocephalae Rhizoma (baizhu), Poria (fuling), Glycyrrhizae Radix et Rhizoma Praeparata cum Melle (zhigancao), Spatholobi Caulis (jixueteng), Psoraleae Fructus (buguzhu), Polygonati Rhizoma (huangjing), and Rehmanniae Radix Praeparata (shudi), was placed on the acupoints RN4 (guanyuan), ST36 (zusanli), SP6 (sanyinjiao), SP10 (xuehai) and RN8 (shenque), continuous 4 cones, once per day Treatment duration: 14 days (beginning at the same day of chemotherapy) Chemotherapy Control group Conventional treatment Oral batilol 50 mg, 3/d and leucogen 20 mg, 3/d G‐CSF, subcutaneous injection for agranulemia Chemotherapy Chemotherapy Oxaliplatin Gimeracil and oteracil potassium capsules Treatment duration: 14 days
Outcomes	Hematologic (adults) (WHO grade 3 to 4), WBC count, Hb, platelets 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	Low risk	There was no loss to follow‐up. All participants were included in the analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Limited outcome measures were reported.
Other bias	Unclear risk	It was mentioned that the groups were comparable, but no baseline characteristics data were presented.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes	Unclear risk	No subjective outcome was reported.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes	Low risk	No blinding; however, machine‐measured objective outcomes were not influenced substantially