He 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	Application effect of multidisciplinary nursing model for diabetic nephropathy patients with uremia complicated with cerebral infarction RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) Intervention delivered at the dialysis clinic, city of Shenzhen, province of Guangdong, China. 2) Intervention involved a multidisciplinary nursing model. Multidisciplinary team led by a nurse: neurologist, endocrinologist, rehabilitation physician, nutritionist and psychological counsellor. In China. 2 arms: 1. Control (routine nursing dialysis) (control arm) and 2. Intervention (multidisciplinary nursing dialysis model) (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 33 Intervention arm N: 33, NA, NA Diabetes type: 4 Mean age: 62.84 ± 12.47 % Male: 65.15 Longest follow‐up: 6 months
Interventions	Control arm: (routine nursing dialysis) Intervention arm: (multidisciplinary nursing dialysis model) 1) Case management 2) Team change 3) Promotion of self‐management
Outcomes	Glycated haemoglobin
Funding source	The trial was financed by a grant from the Office of the Chief Scientist, Department of Health and Social Security
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocation sequence generated with a random number table. A total of 66 diabetic nephropathy patients were randomly divided into the observation group and the control group with 33 cases in each.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Method to conceal the allocation sequence is not reported.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Mean age in each group is reported in text  (62.63 ± 8.45 and 63.04 ± 7.92). Gender is also reported in text in each group  (men: 20/33 vs 23/33).
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Tables 1 to 5. All outcomes are not significantly different between groups at baseline (all P values higher than 0.05).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Unclear risk	No report on the number lost. Looks like they only included the patients who completed the whole study in the paper.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Our outcome of interest was objectively measured (HbA1c).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No registered or published protocol. Results match methods.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Unclear risk	Patients randomised and recruited from a single dialysis clinic. Unsure if the same health professionals were taking care of patients in both groups.
Other bias	Low risk	No evidence of other risk of bias.