Uran 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: prospective RCT Study duration: 8 weeks Setting: gastroenterology polyclinic
Participants	State of disease at beginning of study per IG/CG: At baseline: N (%) disease activity of UC: Remission IG (web‐based education): 5 (31.3%); CG (standard education): 4 (25.0%) N (%) disease activity of CD: Remission IG (web‐based education): 5 (35.6%); CG (standard education): 9 (64.3%) Disease type per IG/CG: IG (web‐based education): 16 UC and 14 CD CG (standard education): 16 UC and 14 CD Inclusion criteria: people were diagnosed with IBD at least six months previously, able to use computer, Internet and mobile phone and aged 18 years and over. Exclusion: people with advanced comorbid diseases such as cancer, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension Age at beginning of study per IG/CG: Mean (unspecified type of variation): IG (web‐based education): 37.26 (± 12.99) CG (standard education): 41.63 (± 11.85) Sex per IG/CG: Numbers in IG (web‐based education): 13/30 females and 17/30 males Numbers in CG (standard education): 12/30 females and 18/30 males Disease duration per IC/CG: mean (SD) months IG: 82.23 (54.52); CG: 81.93 (56.71) Number randomised per IG/CG: IG (web‐based education): 30; CG (standard education): 30 Number reaching end of study per IG/CG IG (web‐based education): 30; CG (standard education): 30
Interventions	IG(web‐based education): information presented via online web‐site CG (standard education): information presented via easy‐to‐read, illustrated, colour‐printed books Both group had exactly the same educational content that differed only in mode of delivery
Outcomes	Duration of follow‐up: NR Primary outcomes as defined by study authors: the effect of web‐based education on disease activity, symptom management and quality of life Secondary outcomes as defined by study authors: NR
Notes	Funding source: the authors declared no financial supports Conflicts of interest: the authors declared no conflict of interest
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Simple randomisation and stratified randomisation were made separately according to the criteria of age, gender, educational level and duration of disease. Randomisation was made by a statistician. Author was contacted, no response received.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details. Author was contacted, no response received.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	The researcher was blinded to the randomisation process but participants knew which treatment they received
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No mention of any outcome assessment blinding. Author was contacted, no response received.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No patient flow details given. Author was contacted, no response received.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol/trial registration. Appropriate outcomes reported as per the method section
Other bias	Low risk	No baseline imbalance. No other concerns.