Fujisawa 1996.

Study characteristics
Methods	Japanese RCT
Participants	Number of participants: 82 (between 1986 and 1990) Number randomised Experimental group (surgery + TF + N‐CWS): 41 Control group (surgery only): 41 Number evaluated Experimental group: 41 Control group: 41 Diagnosis: patients with NSCLC who had undergone a complete resection and mediastinal lymph node dissection Inclusion: the eligibility criteria was: non‐small cell carcinoma; pathologic stage T1N0M0 or T2N0M0 disease; compIete resection; age younger than 75 years; Karnofsky performance status of 90% or greater; no other active malignancy; no hepatorenal dysfunction; no severe complications.
Interventions	Experimental group: TF and N‐CWS: 1 vial of TF, equivalent to 5 x 10⁸ peripheral lymphocytes, was administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks, and N‐CWS (200 mg) was administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, beginning 1 month after resections, and continuing for 1 year Control group: participants received surgery alone without any particular treatment until recurrence
Outcomes	Duration of follow‐up (median): experimental group: 99 months, control group: 83 months Overall survival Disease‐specific survival Recurrence‐free survival
Notes	Supported in part by grants‐in‐aid for scientific research 05453481 from the Ministry of Education and Culture of Japan
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The author reported "Patients were randomised into two groups, TF + N‐CWS or control, by closed envelope", without detailed information about how the envelope was generated and kept.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Open‐label design
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	82 randomised participants were included in analysis (100%)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Prior protocol was unavailable, and no prespecified primary outcome was reported
Other bias	Low risk	No obvious potential source of bias