Ryff‐de Lèche 1992.

Study characteristics
Methods	Clinical application of two computerized diabetes management systems: comparison with the log‐book method Cross‐over RCT, conducted in an outpatient clinic at University Hospital of Basel, Switzerland Two arms: 1. Group 2 ‐ Log book control (control arm) and 2. Group 1 ‐ Camit‐S1 analysis program (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 9 Intervention arm N: 10 Diabetes type: type 1 Median age: 52.0 (range: 21 to 60) % Male: 68.4 Longest follow‐up: 3 months
Interventions	Control arm: 1) Facilitated relay of clinical information 2) Promotion of self‐management Intervention arm: 1) Facilitated relay of clinical information 2) Promotion of self‐management
Outcomes	1) HbA1c, mean % (SE) Control arm: pre 7.0 (0.2), post 6.7 (0.3) Intervention arm: pre 6.8 (0.3), post 6.3 (0.3)
Funding source	This work was supported by a grant of Boehringer Manheim Switzerland
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	Information not available.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Unclear 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	This needs discussion.
Other bias	Unclear risk	Information not available.