Chung 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Effects of a pharmaceutical care model on medication adherence and glycemic control of people with type 2 diabetes RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) Any person with T2DM who visited the diabetes clinic of a major teaching hospital during the recruitment period was requested to participate in this study. Participants met with the pharmacist at the hospital's pharmacy and they also received phone call from the pharmacist. 2) Participants in the intervention group received PC from an experienced pharmacist. In Malaysia. 2 arms: 1) Control (standard pharmacy service) (control arm) and 2) Intervention (pharmaceutical care (PC) model) (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 121 Intervention arm N: 120, NA, NA Diabetes type: 2 Mean age: 59.10 ± 8.72 % Male: 43.98 Longest follow‐up: 12 months
Interventions	Control arm: (standard pharmacy service) Intervention arm: (pharmaceutical care (PC) model) 1) Case management 2) Team change 3) Facilitated relay of clinical information 4) Patient education 5) Promotion of self‐management
Outcomes	Glycated haemoglobin
Funding source	We acknowledge the University of Malaya for funding this project under grant PG 138‐2012B.
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported. People allocated at random to the control (n = 121) or intervention (n = 120) groups. Participants were allocated at random to the control or intervention groups.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 1. All P values higher than 0.05. At baseline, there were no significant differences in demographic data and other characteristics, medication adherence, or glycaemic levels between participants in the control and intervention groups (Tables 1 and 2; Figures 1 and 2).
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Tables 1, 2 and 3. Figures 1 and 2. All P values greater than 0.05. At baseline, there were no significant differences in demographic data and other characteristics, medication adherence, or glycaemic levels between participants in the control and intervention groups (Tables 1 and 2; Figures 1 and 2).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Low risk	Looks like they lost no patients at 12 months.
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 or published protocol. Results match methods.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Unclear risk	Participants in the intervention group received pharmaceutical care (PC) from a pharmacist, whereas those in the control group were provided standard pharmacy services, which consisted of dispensing the medications and providing brief instructions on how to take them. Not clear if the same pharmacist met with patients in both groups. There may also be cross‐contamination between participants in the control and intervention groups that could not be avoided, as they were attending the same clinic. Control participants may have discussed the study with the intervention participants and obtained some information regarding their disease conditions and medications. Therefore, the effects of the PC intervention may have been diluted.
Other bias	Low risk	No evidence of other risk of bias.