Yoo 2009.

Study characteristics
Methods	A ubiquitous chronic disease care system using cellular phones and the internet Patient RCT, conducted in 1 university hospital and 1 public health centre, South Korea Two arms: 1. Control (control arm) and 2. Intervention (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 61 Intervention arm N: 62 Diabetes type: type 2 Mean age: 58.2 ± 8.8 % Male: 58.5 Longest follow‐up: 3 months
Interventions	Control arm: None Intervention arm: 1) Electronic patient registry 2) Facilitated relay of clinical information 3) Patient education 4) Promotion of self‐management 5) Patient reminders
Outcomes	1) HbA1c, mean % (SD) Control arm: pre 7.4 (0.9), post 7.6 (1.0) Intervention arm: pre 7.6 (0.9), post 7.1 (0.8) 2) SBP, mean mmHg (SD) Control arm: pre 137.8 (17.8), post 134.0 (13.6) Intervention arm: pre 140.2 (18.8), post 132.7 (16.2) 3) DBP, mean mmHg (SD) Control arm: pre 83.3 (10.0), post 82.2 (7.7) Intervention arm: pre 84.4 (10.0), post 80.3 (9.2) 4) LDL, mean mg/dL (SD) Control arm: pre 92.8 (27.1), post 88.9 (27.1) Intervention arm: pre 100.5 (27.1), post 85.1 (23.2)
Funding source	This study was funded by a grant from the Seoul R & BD Project. The development of the HSA business model and technology was sponsored by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy.
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Table 1. P values provided and greater than 0.05. No education information.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 1. P values provided and greater than 0.05.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Low risk	5 patients (8.1%) dropped out of the intervention group and 7 (10%) out of the control group. The characteristics of patients who did and did not drop out were similar in both the intervention and control groups.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Objective measure of HbA1c, LDL, BP.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No reported protocol. Methods match outcomes reported.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Low risk	Remotely delivered intervention. Control participants did not have access to testing device.
Other bias	Low risk	No evidence of other bias.