Chan 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	A pharmacist care program: positive impact on cardiac risk in patients with type 2 diabetes Patient RCT, conducted in a diabetes clinic of Tung Wah Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong (public convalescent hospital), Hong Kong Two arms: 1) Control group (control arm) and 2) Intervention group (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 54 Intervention arm N: 51 Diabetes type: type 2 Mean age: NR ± NR % Male: NR Longest follow‐up: 9 months
Interventions	Control arm: None Intervention arm: 1) Case management 2) Team changes 3) Patient education 4) Patient reminders
Outcomes	1a) Aspirin, N users (%) Control arm: pre 32 (59), post 31 (57) Intervention arm: pre 37 (73), post 38 (75) 1b) Aspirin (clopidogrel), N users (%) Control arm: pre 1 (2), post 3 (6) Intervention arm: pre 1 (2), post 1 (2) 1c) Aspirin (other type of anti‐platelets), N users (%) Control arm: pre 23 (43), post 22 (41) Intervention arm: pre 17 (33), post 17 (33) 2) Statins, N users (%) Control arm: pre 33 (61), post 36 (67) Intervention arm: pre 38 (75), post 39 (76) 3a) Antihypertensives (a‐blocker), N users (%) Control arm: pre 7 (13), post 7 (13) Intervention arm: pre 4 (8), post 5 (10) 3b) Antihypertensives (a2 Agonists), N users (%) Control arm: pre 1 (2), post 1 (2) Intervention arm: pre 2 (4), post 2 (4) 3c) Antihypertensives (ACE inhibitor), N users (%) Control arm: pre 31 (57), post 33 (61) Intervention arm: pre 32 (63), post 29 (57) 3d) Antihypertensives (angiotensin II receptor blockers), N users (%) Control arm: pre 11 (20), post 12 (22) Intervention arm: pre 13 (25), post 15 (29) 3e) Antihypertensives (calcium channel blocker), N users (%) Control arm: pre 25 (46), post 25 (46) Intervention arm: pre 29 (57), post 28 (55) 3f) Antihypertensives (diuretic), N users (%) Control arm: pre 13 (24), post 17 (31) Intervention arm: pre 15 (29), post 13 (25) 3g) Antihypertensives (ß‐blocker), N users (%) Control arm: pre 27 (50), post 30 (56) Intervention arm: pre 27 (53), post 29 (57) 3h) Antihypertensives (vasodilators), N users (%) Control arm: pre 1 (2), post 1 (2) Intervention arm: pre 3 (6), post 3 (6) 4) HbA1c, mean % (SD) Control arm: pre 9.5 (1.8), post 9.1 (NR) Intervention arm: pre 9.7 (1.4), post 8.1 (NR) 5) SBP, mean mmHg (SD) Control arm: pre 138.0 (19.0), post 134.8 (NR) Intervention arm: pre 141.0 (24.0), post 134.5 (NR) 6) DBP, mean mmHg (SD) Control arm: pre 74.0 (11.0), post 73.3 (NR) Intervention arm: pre 75.0 (11.0), post 72.2 (NR) 7) LDL, mean mg/dL (SD) Control arm: pre 107.1 (28.6), post 106.0 (NR) Intervention arm: pre 101.3 (32.9), post 87.4 (NR) 8) Smoking cessation, N smokers (%) Control arm: pre 4 (7), post 4 (7) Intervention arm: pre 4 (8), post 3 (6)
Funding source	The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: the School of Pharmacy, The Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Diabetes Research Fund, Diabetes Hong Kong
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "computer generated."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "…and sealed in envelopes labeled with consecutive numbers. The envelopes were opened in the clinic in ascending manner…" Opaque envelopes?
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Characteristics balanced between groups.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Information not available.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Low risk	No losses to follow‐up; intention‐to‐treat analysis. Baseline based on those randomised.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	High risk	Quote: "Blinding of participants and investigators was not possible in our study". Unsure if pharmacist was outcome collector. Objective methods not described.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	< 2005 approach used since no protocol; methods match outcomes.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Low risk	Information not available.
Other bias	Low risk	No evidence of other bias