Naji 1994.

Study characteristics
Methods	Integrated care for diabetes: clinical, psychosocial, and economic evaluation Patient RCT, conducted in a general practice, United Kingdom Two arms: 1. Conventional care (control arm) and 2. Integrated care (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 135 Intervention arm N: 139 Diabetes type: unclear/not reported Mean age: 58.8 ± 18.1 % Male: 56.0 Longest follow‐up: 24 months
Interventions	Control arm: 1) Electronic patient registry 2) Patient reminders Intervention arm: 1) Electronic patient registry 2) Clinician education 3) Clinician reminders 4) Patient reminders
Outcomes	1) HbA1c, mean % (SD) Control arm: pre 5.3 (1.4), post 5.3 (1.7) Intervention arm: pre 5.3 (1.4), post 5.3 (1.7) 2) SBP, mean mmHg (SD) Control arm: pre 153.9 (24.8), post 156.4 (25.7) Intervention arm: pre 155.9 (27.1), post 161.5 (25.1) 3) DBP, mean mmHg (SD) Control arm: pre 84.8 (11.5), post 83.5 (9.9) Intervention arm: pre 85.6 (15.6), post 84.3 (11.1)
Funding source	This research was funded by the Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Office Home and Health Department
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Information not available.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Patient randomised and allocation concealment not reported.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Information not available.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Information not available.
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)	Unclear risk	Information not available.
Other bias	Low risk	Information not available.