Krass 2007.

Study characteristics
Methods	The Pharmacy Diabetes Care Program: assessment of a community pharmacy diabetes service model in Australia Cluster‐RCT (56 clusters), conducted in community pharmacies in Australia (New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia) Two arms: 1. Control (control arm) and 2. Intervention (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 159 Intervention arm N: 176 Diabetes type: type 2 Mean age: 62.0 ± 11.0 % Male: 51.0 Longest follow‐up: 6 months
Interventions	Control arm: None Intervention arm: 1) Case management 2) Clinician education 3) Patient education 4) Promotion of self‐management 5) Financial incentives
Outcomes	1) HbA1c, mean % (SD) Control arm: pre 8.3 (1.3), post 8.0 (1.2) Intervention arm: pre 8.9 (1.4), post 7.9 (1.2) 2) SBP, mean mmHg (SD) Control arm: pre 133.0 (12.0), post 135.0 (15.0) Intervention arm: pre 135.0 (14.0), post 133.0 (15.0) 3) DBP, mean mmHg (SD) Control arm: pre 77.0 (9.0), post 76.0 (9.0) Intervention arm: pre 79.0 (8.0), post 77.0 (8.0)
Funding source	The Pharmacy Diabetes Care Program was funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing as part of the Third Community Pharmacy Agreement
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	No P values or text explanation other than "Overall, the intervention and control pharmacies and pharmacists were well matched in terms of pharmacy and personal demographics".
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	High risk	Table 1. Most patients (79%) reported being treated with oral glucose‐lowering drugs alone; however, the proportion of patients taking a combination of insulin and oral glucose‐lowering drugs was higher in the intervention than the control group (25 vs 13%; P = 0.01). There was also a difference in years since diagnosis of diabetes, with the control group having been diagnosed with diabetes longer than the intervention group (10.4 vs 8.6 years; P = 0.04).
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	High risk	With respect to clinical measures, the control and intervention groups at baseline were similar with the exception of baseline HbA1c (P < 0.01; Table 1).
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.