Kirwin 2010.

Study characteristics
Methods	Pharmacist recommendations to improve the quality of diabetes care: a randomized controlled trial Cluster‐RCT (8 clusters with 72 providers), conducted in 8 suites within a hospital‐based primary care practice on the main campus of a large academic teaching hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, USA Two arms: 1. Usual care group (control arm) and 2. Intervention group (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 175 Intervention arm N: 171 Diabetes type: type 1 and type 2 Mean age: 63.0 ± NR % Male: 34.2 Longest follow‐up: 12 months
Interventions	Control arm: None Intervention arm: 1) Team changes 2) Electronic patient registry 3) Clinician reminders
Outcomes	1) Retinopathy screening (eye exam), N screened (%) Control arm: pre 56 (37), post 76 (50) Intervention arm: pre 57 (38), post 90 (60) 2) Renal screening (microalbumin), N screened (%) Control arm: pre 71 (47), post 87 (58) Intervention arm: pre 69 (46), post 94 (63) 3) Controlled hypertension (< 130/80 mmHg), N under control (%) Control arm: pre 68 (45), post 62 (41) Intervention arm: pre 71 (47), post 66 (44)
Funding source	This project received no external funding
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "…random number generator".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocation concealment not described. Cluster.
Provider's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	High risk	Information not available.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	High risk	Annual lipid profiles (P = 0.015).
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Annual eye exam (P = 0.870); annual urine microalbumin exam (P = 0.859); HTN‐C (< 130/80) (P = 0.769).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	High risk	Per‐protocol analysis, baseline based on those analysed. Numbers provided for loss to follow‐up (balanced), but reasons not provided.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Unclear risk	Blinding (and of outcome assessors) not described. Objective outcome methods not described.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Does not match protocol for secondary outcomes listed in protocol.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Low risk	Quote: "This randomization unit minimized the potential for contamination of the intervention that might occur if …."cluster"".
Other bias	Low risk	Information not available.