Kulkarni 1998.

Study characteristics
Methods	Nutrition practice guidelines for type 1 diabetes mellitus positively affect dietitian practices and patient outcomes Cluster‐RCT (19 clusters with 19 providers), conducted with dieticians across the USA Two arms: 1. Usual care (control arm) and 2. Practice guidelines (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 24 Intervention arm N: 27 Diabetes type: type 1 Mean age: 19.5 ± 10.5 % Male: 46.3 Longest follow‐up: 3 months
Interventions	Control arm: None Intervention arm: 1) Clinician education
Outcomes	1) HbA1c
Funding source	This project was made possible by an educational grant from PACE, matching funds from the Diabetes Care and Education diabetic practice group
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)	High risk	Practice guidelines dietitians were older than usual care dietitians, but there were no significant differences in their level of education nor in years of experience working with persons with diabetes. Practice guidelines dietitians, however, had a higher caseload of patients with diabetes each month compared with usual care dietitians (Table 1).
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	High risk	Table 4 ‐ age, gender and race look unbalanced, no education reported. No P values given.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Table 5 ‐ outcome look balanced, no P value reported.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	High risk	Difference in microalbuminuria.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	High 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	Unclear risk	Information not available.