Wallymahmed 2011.

Study characteristics
Methods	Nurse‐led cardiovascular risk factor intervention leads to improvements in cardiovascular risk targets and glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes when compared with routine diabetes clinic attendance Patient RCT, conducted in a Diabetes Centre at Aintree University Hospitals, Liverpool, United Kingdom Two arms: 1. Routine group (control arm) and 2. Nurse‐led group (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 41 Intervention arm N: 40 Diabetes type: type 1 Mean age: 34.6 ± 9.0 % Male: 55.6 Longest follow‐up: 24 months
Interventions	Control arm: None Intervention arm: 1) Case management 2) Team changes 3) Patient education
Outcomes	1) Statins, N users (%) Control arm: pre 9 (22), post 24 (62) Intervention arm: pre 16 (40), post 37 (95) 2) Antihypertensives (any), N users (%) Control arm: pre 9 (22), post 11 (28) Intervention arm: pre 12 (30), post 18 (46) 3) HbA1c, mean % (SD) Control arm: pre 9.9 (1.4), post 9.4 (1.5) Intervention arm: pre 10.1 (1.4), post 9.2 (1.6) 4) SBP, mean mmHg (SD) Control arm: pre 119.0 (17.0), post 124.0 (16.0) Intervention arm: pre 127.0 (22.0), post 120.0 (15.0) 5) DBP, mean mmHg (SD) Control arm: pre 69.0 (10.0), post 70.0 (8.0) Intervention arm: pre 71.0 (13.0), post 68.0 (7.0) 6) LDL, mean mg/dL (SD) Control arm: pre 127.6 (23.2), post 100.5 (30.9) Intervention arm: pre 131.5 (34.8), post 85.1 (34.8)
Funding source	Not reported
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "computer generated".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "blind‐envelope system". Sealed? Opaque?
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "The baseline data showed that the groups were well matched". Also provide non‐significant values for baseline characteristics.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	All outcome assessed were not significant at baseline between both groups.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	High risk	Two were lost to follow‐up in reference group and 1 lost to follow‐up in intervention group. Study states that they failed to attend and were discharged back to general practice, but did not provide reasons for why they were discharged.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Unclear risk	Blinding not described. Objective laboratory methods not described.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	< 2005 approach used since no protocol; methods match outcomes.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Low risk	Information not available.
Other bias	Low risk	Information not available.