Kaur 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Telephonic consultation and follow‐up in diabetics: impact on metabolic profile, quality of life, and patient compliance RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab, India (outpatient department (OPD) of a tertiary care teaching hospital). 2) Physicians in India 3 arms: 1. Group A (Control) rare mode ‐ follow‐up at 3 months (control arm) and 2. Group B (Intervention) moderate mode ‐ monthly follow‐up (intervention arm), 3. Intervention 2 (frequent mode: monthly visits and weekly consultation call) (other arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 40 Intervention arm N: 40, 40, NA Diabetes type: 3 Mean age: 51.33 ± 10.39 % Male: 50.83 Longest follow‐up: 3 months
Interventions	Control arm: (rare mode ‐ follow‐up at 3 months) 1) Patient education Intervention arm: (moderate mode ‐ monthly follow‐up) 1) Case management 2) Patient education Intervention arm: (frequent mode: monthly visits and weekly consultation call ) 1) Case management 2) Patient education
Outcomes	Glycated haemoglobin Low‐density lipoprotein Harms
Funding source	Source of support: nil
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Written, informed consent for inclusion into the study was taken from the participants and they were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups, each consisting of 40 participants, using published tables of random numbers.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 1. Overall, the 3 groups were well matched for the demographic profile and baseline characteristics (shown in Table 1), ruling out any confounding factors that may alter the results of the intervention.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 1. Overall, the 3 groups were well matched for the demographic profile and baseline characteristics (shown in Table 1), ruling out any confounding factors that may alter the results of the intervention.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Low risk	All of the 120 participants completed the study and there was no case of any dropout, loss to follow‐up or mortality in any of the 3 groups.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Unclear risk	Objective measure for HbA1c, LDL. Patient reported harms.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol registered; methods match objectives.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Unclear risk	Patient‐randomised. Groups met with the same team.
Other bias	Low risk	None.