Gillani 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Determining effective diabetic care; a multicentre ‐ longitudinal interventional study RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) outpatient department (OPD) for diabetic treatment, All the type 2 diabetes patients registered more than 6 months with diabetic clinics in Pulau Pinang and general hospital Penang were recruited. 2) Participants (in the telemonitoring intervention) received feedback upon receipt of transmission from the study co‐ordinator; a registered pharmacist provide once weekly visit to participant (in pharmacist intervention arm) home for monitoring and evaluation (also provide counselling). In Malaysia 3 arms: 1. Control (usual care) (control arm) and 2. Intervention (tele‐monitoring) (intervention arm)3. Intervention (pharmacist) (other arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 50 Intervention arm N: 50, 50, NA Diabetes type: 2 Mean age: 53 ± 13.86 % Male: 56.67 Longest follow‐up: 6 months
Interventions	Control arm: (usual care) Intervention arm: (tele‐monitoring) 1) Electronic patient registry 2) Facilitated relay of clinical information 3) Promotion of self‐management Intervention arm: (pharmacist) 1) Case management 2) Team change 3) Facilitated relay of clinical information 4) Patient education
Outcomes	Glycated haemoglobin Harms
Funding source	NR
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Systemic random sampling technique is used to distribute the participants to the arms.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Initial baseline comparison showed "No significant difference" between the 2 intervention arms and control group. Table 1 P values support this.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Initial baseline comparison showed "No significant difference" between the 2 intervention arms and control group. Table 1 P values support this.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Unclear risk	Sample size was calculated to account for a 20% loss to follow‐up, however no discussion about dropout was made, and no post values were provided.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Unclear risk	Objective measure via glucometer for HbA1c, subjective for harms.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol registered. Outcomes match methods description.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Low risk	Patient randomised. Unlikely that control group received intervention.
Other bias	Low risk	None identified.