Niiranen 1985.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised, double‐blind, 2‐period cross‐over study
Participants	32 people (20 men/4 women) aged 48‐78 years, mean = 61 years Tumour type: lung cancer Chemotherapy regimen: cyclophosphamide 1.2 g/m2 day 1, etoposide 150 mg/m2 IV day 1, 250 mg/m2 orally day 3, and vincristine 1.3 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 (5 people); cyclophosphamide 400 mg/m2, adriamycin 40 mg/m2, cisplatinum 40 mg/m2 every 28 days (8 people); cisplatinum 90 mg/m2 day 1 and vindesine 3 mg/m2 5 x weekly then twice monthly every 28 days (2 people); cisplatinum 90 mg/m2 day 1 and etoposide 50 mg/m2 days 1‐5 every 28 days (9 people); cisplatinum 60 mg/m2 day 1 and etoposide 150 mg/m2 IV day 1 and 200 mg/m2 orally day 3 every 28 days (1 person) Chemotherapy emetogenicity: high
Interventions	Nabilone 1 mg orally night before chemotherapy, 1 hour before chemotherapy and every 12 hours up to 24 hours as required orally, n = 32 Prochlorperazine 7.5 mg orally night before chemotherapy, 1 hour before chemotherapy and every 12 hours up to 24 hours as required orally, n = 32
Outcomes	Episodes, frequency and severity of nausea and vomiting at 24 hours; withdrawal due to adverse effects; participant preference; episodes of drowsiness, hallucination, hypotension
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	24/32 (75%) participants received nabilone, 24/32 (75%) participants received prochlorperazine
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Data reported for primary outcome
Other bias	Unclear risk	Assumed washout period sufficient. Unclear if paired analysis was performed. Unclear if groups were balanced at baseline
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"Identical appearing capsules used"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Blinding assumed as study reported as "double‐blind" and "identical appearing capsules used"