Ando 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised, controlled study with 2 arms comparison of aprepitant + palonosetron or granisetron or azasetron + dexamethasone vs fosaprepitant meglumine + palonosetron or granisetron or azasetron + dexamethasone Recruitment period: January 2013 to March 2014 101 patients enrolled 93 patients randomised Masking: open‐label Baseline patient characteristics: reported Follow‐up: n.r.
Participants	Inclusion criteria Japanese patients who started to receive chemotherapy including cisplatin (CDDP) (≥ 60 mg/m²) Exclusion criteria nausea or vomiting within 24 h before start of administration of antineoplastic drugs could not receive a drug orally could not answer the questionnaire did not provide consent considered unsuitable for this study Mean age ± SD, years: 61.7 ± 11.7 in aprepitant group, 65.4 ± 10.0 in fosaprepitant group Gender: male (74) + female (19) Tumour/cancer type: malignant tumour (lung cancer, gastric cancer, oesophageal cancer, head and neck cancer) Chemotherapy regimen: CDDP (60 mg/m² or higher) Country: Japan (single centre)
Interventions	Experimental: arm A: aprepitant Day 1: aprepitant 125 mg + palonosetron 0.75 mg or granisetron 3 mg or azasetron 10 mg + dexamethasone 6.6 to 9.9 mg Days 2 to 4: aprepitant 80 mg + dexamethasone 3.3 to 6.6 mg Day 5: aprepitant 80 mg Experimental: arm B: fosaprepitant Day 1: fosaprepitant meglumine 150 mg + palonosetron 0.75 mg or granisetron 3 mg or azasetron 10 mg + dexamethasone 6.6 to 9.9 mg Days 2 to 4: dexamethasone 3.3 to 6.6 mg
Outcomes	Primary endpoint complete response rate Secondary endpoint(s) complete control rate
Notes	no funding for this work was received study authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: randomised trial but method of randomisation not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no allocation concealment reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Blinding of participants	High risk	Quote: "... open‐label ..."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Blinding of personnel	High risk	Quote: "... open‐label ..."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes (Patient reported outcomes)	High risk	Comment: patients and personnel were not blinded towards the intervention and therefore might influence subjective outcomes analysis
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Subjective outcomes (Patient reported outcomes)	Low risk	Comment: all randomised patients were included in the analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: in the results section, palonosetron, granisetron, and azasetron were not separately reported
Other bias	Low risk	Comment: no information to suggest other sources of bias