Liu 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods	Effect of intensive nursing education on the prevention of diabetic foot ulceration among patients with high‐risk diabetic foot: a follow‐up analysis RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) Department of Orthopedics, Center of Diabetic Foot, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, NO. 10, Tie Yi Road, Yang Fang Dian, Haidian District, Beijing 100038, People’s Republic of China. 2) Not reported but acknowledgments thank doctors and nurses in China 2 arms: 1. Control (conventional care) (control arm) and 2. Intervention (transitional care) (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 142 Intervention arm N: 142, NA, NA Diabetes type: 2 Mean age: 58.75 ± 11.3 % Male: 57.4 Longest follow‐up: 24 months
Interventions	Control arm: (conventional care) 1) Patient education 2) Promotion of self‐management Intervention arm: (transitional care) 1) Case management 2) Patient education 3) Promotion of self‐management
Outcomes	Glycated haemoglobin Systolic blood pressure Diastolic blood pressure Low‐density lipoprotein
Funding source	Not reported
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 1. P values provided and all above 0.05.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 3. P values provided under each pre intervention case/control dimer (not the right column).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Low risk	All patients enrolled were followed up for 2 years. No mention of loss.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Objective measures for HbA1c, BP, LDL.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No published protocol. Methods match outcomes.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Unclear risk	Patients randomised at a single location. Considerable likelihood of contamination. No mention of who is providing intervention.
Other bias	Low risk	None identified.