Shahid 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Mobile phone intervention to improve diabetes care in rural areas of Pakistan: a randomized controlled trial RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) Outpatient services of Department of Endocrinology, Liaquat National Hospital (LNH). 2) The intervention involved the principal Investigator (from the Department of Endocrinology) and diabetes educationist. In Pakistan. 2 arms: 1. Control (usual care) (control arm) and 2. Intervention (mobile phone) (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 220 Intervention arm N: 220, NA, NA Diabetes type: 2 Mean age: 49.08 ± 1.67 % Male: 61.4 Longest follow‐up: 4 months
Interventions	Control arm: (usual care) 1) Facilitated relay of clinical information 2) Patient education 3) Promotion of self‐management Intervention arm: (mobile phone) 1) Case management 2) Facilitated relay of clinical information 3) Patient education Promotion of self‐management
Outcomes	Glycated haemoglobin Systolic blood pressure Diastolic blood pressure Low‐density lipoprotein Hypertension control
Funding source	Not reported
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported. Patients were randomly distributed in the intervention and non‐intervention groups based on gender.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Nothing reported about concealment.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Table I, all P values above 0.05.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	High risk	Table II: P values under 0.05 for diastolic blood pressure, number of patients with hypertension and medication intake.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Unclear risk	Loss to follow‐up not addressed.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Our outcomes of interest are all objective (HbA1c, SBP, DBP, patients with hypertension and LDL). Before randomisation into groups, baseline data were taken by the staff of the clinic, however, it was not possible to blind the patients and the clinicians to the allocation groups.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No registered protocol or previously published protocol. Results match methods.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Low risk	Patients never saw each other. Intervention made individually by phone.
Other bias	Low risk	No evidence of other bias.