Baraz 2014.

Methods	Study design: quasi‐experimental, pretest‐post‐test interventional study (using each subject as his/her own control); 155 assessed for eligibility, 97 participants randomised Study duration: August 2013 to December 2013; conducted over 2 dialysis sessions Study follow‐up: 6 months
Participants	Country: Iran Setting: dialysis unit HD patients age ≥ 18 years on HD for at least 6 months Number (randomised/completed): intervention group (48/45); control group (49/45) Mean age ± SD (years): intervention group (33.83 ± 8.89); control group (35.87 ± 10.13) Sex (M): intervention group (46.6%); control group (51.1%) Exclusion criteria: not reported
Interventions	Intervention type classification: education eHealth intervention used: video The educational contents of both programs were similar and covered necessary information about the ESKD and dietary management for HD, particularly fluid restrictions and identification of restricted/allowed foods, as well as skin care and stress management Intervention group Video education Educational contents were presented through showing a video film, watched during 2 consecutive dialysis sessions in a week Control group Oral education 2 group education sessions were held after dialysis sessions. Duration of each session did not exceed 45 minutes. A teaching booklet regarding dietary control was given to each participant at the end of the session
Outcomes	Outcome measured at baseline and 6 months post intervention QoL: using the Iranian version of the Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36)
Notes	Funding source: supported by Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences and financed by them
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random allocation was performed by using the random computer‐generated numbers
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Blinding of participants	High risk	Could not have been blinded due to the nature of the intervention
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Blinding of personnel	High risk	Principle investigator delivered the intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcome	Low risk	No objective outcomes were measured
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes	Unclear risk	Validated measure, however QoL is subjective and conducted in unblinded participants
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	6% to 8% loss‐to‐follow‐up in both groups
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement