Biermann 2002.

Study characteristics
Methods	Are there time and cost savings by using telemanagement for patients on intensified insulin therapy? A randomised, controlled trial Patient RCT (0 clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) Intervention delivered at the Institute for Diabetes Research in Munich, Germany. 2) Intervention delivered by physicians specialised in diabetes and experienced in intensified insulin therapy. In Germany. 2 arms: 1) Control (conventional outpatient care) (control arm) and 2) Intervention (telecare management) (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 18 Intervention arm N: 30, NA, NA Diabetes type: 1 and 2 Mean age: 30.3 ± 13.5 % Male: NR Longest follow‐up: 8 months
Interventions	Control arm: (conventional outpatient care) 1) Patient education 2) Promotion of self‐management Intervention arm: (telecare management) 1) Case management 2) Electronic patient registry 3) Facilitated relay of clinical information 5) Patient education 6) Promotion of self‐management
Outcomes	Glycated haemoglobin
Funding source	This work was supported by the MediSense/ Abbott Co., Wiesbaden, Germany
Notes	—
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.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Similar age, duration of diabetes and distance from diabetes centre.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	HbA1c of 8.0% for the control group and of 8.3% for the intervention group at baseline. Nothing reported in text about possible difference.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Unclear risk	Sample size in each arms unbalanced (30 participants in the intervention group and 16 in the control). Both intention‐to‐treat and per‐protocol analysis should be done when evaluating the equivalence of an intervention compared to standard practices. Nothing about the number of patients who completed the study.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Objective outcome (HbA1c).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No registered protocol or previously published protocol. No SD data provided for HbA1c levels. Results match methods.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Low risk	Only the intervention arm used telecare and received call from a specialised physician. Both groups received frequent advice from a health professional about insulin titration either by phone (intervention group) or in‐person (control group).
Other bias	Unclear risk	The paper lacks details.