Qiu 2012.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Duration of the study: June 2008 to January 2010 Study follow‐up: 24 weeks
Participants	Country: China Setting: inpatient or outpatient not reported; multicentre (HD centres in three hospitals) Inclusion criteria: ESKD defined by NKF K/DOQI guideline; aged 18 to 80 years; maintenance HD at least 3 months ago with dialysis adequacy (Kt/V ≥ 1.2; URR ≥ 65%); patient's compliance to Chinese and Western medicine treatments; written informed consent; one of TCM symptom classification: spleen‐kidney qi deficiency, spleen‐kidney yang deficiency, spleen‐kidney qi and yin deficiency or yin‐yang deficiency Number: treatment group (58); control group (51) Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (57.78 ± 12.83); control group (57.54 ± 11.87) Sex (M/F): 47/62 Exclusion criteria: malignancy, poorly controlled diabetes, acute infection or acute cardiovascular diseases; skin irritability or local infection on acupoints
Interventions	Treatment group Moxibustion Control group Routine care Duration of intervention: 12 weeks
Outcomes	Nutritional status Measured by the MQSGA. MQSGA included the history and physical examination in two parts. Scores ranged from 7 to 35 points (7‐10; normal nutrition, 11‐20; mild to moderate malnutrition, 21‐30; severe malnutrition, 31‐35; extremely severe malnutrition) Hand grip strength TKK5001 GRIP‐A grip strength metre (HKBG., Ltd, Sweden), measurement of grip strength three times as the average Biological parameters (Hb, Serum albumin, dry weight) Blood samples collected in accordance with the United States Renal Disease Foundation, published in 2001 of kidney disease prognosis Quality Guidelines (NKF‐K/DOQI) Time points measured (or reported) in the study: post‐treatment (12 weeks), follow‐up (24 weeks)
Notes	Four studies were published by the same research group over three years, and enrolled the same participants at different time points. The review authors regarded them as one study and used the most collective and representative information
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Random number table was used
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Unable to be blinded (open‐label study)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Intention‐to‐treat analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No study protocol available
Other bias	Low risk	Study appears free of other biases