Su 2009.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Duration of the study: December 2006 to February 2007 Study follow‐up: 12 weeks
Participants	Country: Taiwan Setting: inpatient or outpatient not reported; single centre (a HD centre in a university hospital) Inclusion criteria: aged 18 to 80 years; 3 to 5 hours of regular HD 3 times/week; HD for at least 6 months Number: treatment group (34); control group (35) Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (61.07 ± 13.87); control group (58.57 ± 12.61) Sex (M/F): 33/29 (only participants who had completed the study were counted) Exclusion criteria: hospitalisation due to reasons other than HD; pregnancy; pacemaker
Interventions	Treatment group FIR acupoint stimulation Control group Heat pad therapy Duration of intervention: 12 weeks
Outcomes	Autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity Measured by HRV analyser (12 HRV parameters were measured: mean heart rate, SD of normal to normal, pressure stress index, total power, very low frequency, low frequency, high frequency, low frequency/high frequency ration, autonomic nervous system activity, stress resistance, stress index and fatigue index) QOL Measured by WHOQOL‐BREF Time points measured (or reported) in the study: 4, 8, 12 weeks for ANS activity; 12 weeks for QOL
Notes	Only participants who had completed the study was analysed. Some patients were excluded before the intervention was delivered, based on the results of baseline heart rate variability and QOL questionnaire. However, the criteria for pre‐intervention exclusion was not reported
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
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	The heat pad control intervention was regarded as sham intervention of FIR therapy, because of its heat property similar to FIR therapy. However, appearances of two interventions were not identical. Results of credibility test of the control intervention were not reported
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Only participants who had completed the study were analysed (3 from FIR group and 5 in control group were withdrawn from 69 randomised patients for unknown reasons)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No study protocol available
Other bias	Low risk	Study appears free of other biases