Dijkstra 2008.

Study characteristics
Methods	Implementing diabetes passports to focus practice reorganization on improving diabetes care Cluster‐RCT (40 clusters with 61 providers), conducted in practices in the middle and south regions of The Netherlands Two arms: 1. Control (control arm) and 2. Intervention (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 1055 Intervention arm N: 1004 Diabetes type: type 2 Mean age: 63.4 ± 9.6 % Male: 49.8 Longest follow‐up: 18 months
Interventions	Control arm: None Intervention arm: 1) Audit and feedback 2) Clinician education 3) Facilitated relay of clinical information
Outcomes	1) Retinopathy screening (eye exam) 2) Foot screening 3) Renal screening (creatinine) 4a) Controlled hypertension (DBP < 85 mmHg) 4b) Controlled hypertension (SBP < 150 mmHg)
Funding source	This study was funded by the Netherlands organisation for health research and development (ZONMW grant number 2300 0018)
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Information not available.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Information not available.
Provider's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Data is provided in Table 1 and P values are reported. No significant differences. No report of rural/urban.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	High risk	The patients in the intervention group were more often women than in the control group.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Table 3: no P values; looks balanced.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Low risk	Information not available.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Information not available.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Information not available.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Low risk	Information not available.
Other bias	Low risk	Information not available.