Tildesley 2011.

Study characteristics
Methods	Efficacy of A1C reduction using internet intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) Internet‐based glucose monitoring system (IBGMS) intervention delivered in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 2) Patients received feedback from their endocrinologist. In Canada. 2 arms: 1. Control (conventional care) (control arm) and 2. Intervention (Internet‐based glucose monitoring system‐IBGMS) (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 25 Intervention arm N: 25, NA, NA Diabetes type: 2 Mean age: 59.5 ± NR % Male: 63.04 Longest follow‐up: 12 months
Interventions	Control arm: (conventional care) 1) Facilitated relay of clinical information 2) Promotion of self‐management Intervention arm: (Internet‐based glucose monitoring system‐IBGMS) 1) Electronic patient registry 2) Facilitated relay of clinical information 3) Promotion of self‐management 4) Patient reminders
Outcomes	Glycated haemoglobin
Funding source	This work was supported by Endocrine Research Society (Vancouver, British Columbia), which received funding from ALR Technologies Inc. We extend our appreciation to Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. for their generous gifts of glucose meters and test strips.
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Patients were randomly assigned to IBGMS or a control group for 6 months using a computer random number generator.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 1. All P values above 0.05.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 1. HbA1c has a P value of 0.42.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Low risk	We enrolled 50 patients. Four patients (2 from each group) were excluded because they were nonadherent. Lost 8% in each group. Low and balanced numbers.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Our outcome of interest was objectively measured (HbA1c).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No registered or published protocol. Results match methods.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Unclear risk	All patients met with the same endocrinologist and were provided with standard office‐based care. All patients were provided with a blood glucose meter and test strips. Neither group was taught how to interpret SMBG results, although as part of the inclusion criteria, all patients had completed prior training in SMBG. It should be noted that all patients attend a comprehensive 4‐day education course when diagnosed with diabetes.
Other bias	Low risk	None identified.