Feily 2012.

Methods	RCT Vehicle‐controlled Parallel‐group design
Participants	Pruritus: UP Description: participants with ESRD who were treated with haemodialysis Number of participants randomised: 60 Number of participants evaluable: 60 CS 4% group : 30 Placebo group: 30 Withdrawals/dropouts: 0 Reason for dropout: NA Age (mean ± SD): 53 years ± 11.4 Sex (male/female): 38 (63%)/22 (37%) Underlying disease(s): ESRD Participant pool: single‐centre Setting: inpatient Haemodialysis: 3 times per week Baseline pruritus assessment: yes Duration/severity of pruritus: for at least 6 weeks without any systemic or topical treatment for the pruritus Baseline parameters: mean VAS ± SD: Cromolyn sodium (CS 4%): 2.5 ± 1.1 Vehicle group: 2.7 ± 1.3
Interventions	Intervention 1: topical CS 4% 2 times a day starting immediately after dialysis Intervention 2: vehicle 2 times a day immediately after dialysis Additional medication: all other anti‐pruritus treatments were prohibited during the study; other routine medications were allowed Route of administration: topical Duration of treatment: 4 weeks Follow‐up: no information
Outcomes	Pruritus assessment: VAS (0‐5, 0: no pruritus and 5: the worst pruritus) Adverse events
Notes	Results in abstract and full text (e.g. Table 1) are conflicting; we worked with results stated in the abstract.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"[S]imple random table"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"[P]atients were randomly allocated to one of the two arms of the study"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"The medications used were not revealed to their physicians" "A similar tube was used to store CS 4% to make both creams to look physically identical"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"The placebo was formulated by a pharmacist to have a similar base with the drug but not containing the active ingredient and stored in a tube without any labelling. A similar tube was used to store CS 4% to make both creams to look physically identical"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No dropouts; unclear if intention‐to‐treat analysis was used
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No indication of selective reporting; no protocol or registration number
Size of study (possible biases confounded by small size)	High risk	Number of participants randomised: 60
Other bias	High risk	Results in abstract and full text (e.g. Table 1) are conflicting