Yuan 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Effect of case management on glycemic control and behavioral outcomes for Chinese people with type 2 diabetes: a 2‐year study RCT (NA clusters and NA providers), conducted in 1) Study recruitment in the area surrounding one hospital in Eastern China. 2) Diabetes educator assessed the participant’s health care needs. If necessary, participants were referred short‐term to a doctor, a nutritionist or psychologist who provided feedback to the diabetes educator through a case report form. In China. 2 arms: 1. Control: usual care (control arm) and 2. Intervention: case management (intervention arm)
Participants	Control arm N: 60 Intervention arm N: 60, NA, NA Diabetes type: 2 Mean age: 58.69 ± 10.8 % Male: 47.22 Longest follow‐up: 24 months
Interventions	Control arm: usual care 1) Patient education 2) Patient reminders Intervention arm: case management 1) Case management 2) Facilitated relay of clinical information 3) Patient education 4) Promotion of self‐management 5) Continuous quality improvement
Outcomes	Glycated haemoglobin
Funding source	Not reported
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomised to the case management (CM) group or the control group based on random numbers generated through Proc Plan (SAS9.2) and block randomisation procedures with a block size of 4.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	This process was accomplished by a statistician with no clinical involvement in the trial, and the process was concealed from the researchers. Group assignment for each participant was pulled from a sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed and stapled envelope.
Patient's baseline characteristics (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 1. P values provided greater than 0.05. No education or income.
Patient's baseline outcomes (selection bias)	Low risk	Table 1. P values provided and > 0.05.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	Low risk	53/60 followed up in control, 55/60 followed up in intervention. Reasons for dropout provided.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and of outcome assessors (detection bias)	Low risk	Objective HbA1c measure.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	There is no published protocol but all the outcomes in the methods are reported in the results.
Risk of contamination (other bias)	Low risk	The nurse educators were different in the arms.
Other bias	Unclear risk	The baseline HbA1C in both groups was low. "Finally, just the mere action of asking questions could be interpreted as a mild intervention in itself, as it might have raised patients’ awareness of topics that were important. This could be a factor which might account for changes observed in the control group."