Kokubu 2000.

Methods	RCT, patient recruitment: patients from hospital (n = 17) Setting: hospital and patients' home, Japan
Participants	Control patients: n = 34, women: 56%, mean age: 47.3, asthma severity: not reported, FEV1: not reported, ICS use: not reported Intervention patients: n = 32, women: 62%, mean age: 49.9, asthma severity: not reported, FEV1: not reported, ICS use: not reported
Interventions	Name and duration of programme: asthma telemedicine system, during 6 months Intervention group components Organisational ‐ patients: structured follow‐up; telephone hotline Organisational ‐ healthcare professionals or system: explicit teamwork between healthcare providers; fax sent to physician; information technology Patient education: one on one educational phone calls on asthma and management of the disease Self‐management support: providing an action plan; regular checks of inhalation technique Frequency: not clear Healthcare professionals involved: pulmonary care physicians; respiratory care nurses Control group components Usual care Number of components and dominant component: 8, organisational ‐ healthcare professionals or system
Outcomes	Organisational level Process: mean inhaled corticosteroid dose (puff/day) Healthcare utilisation: hospitalisation rate (hospitalisation/patient/6 months); night ER visits rate; daytime ER visits rate Costs: direct and indirect cost savings Patient level Patient satisfaction: satisfaction survey Quality of life: improvement in QoL score Asthma symptoms and activity level: mean inhaled ß2‐agonists dose (puff/day); mean oral corticosteroid dose (tab/day) Self‐management: compliance with prescribed inhaled corticosteroids; compliance with oral corticosteroids; compliance with daily PEF measurements Pulmonary function: mean PEF Time of outcome measurement: at 6 months
Notes	We only used the data presented in the primary reference for the study
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Telephone registration randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not clear in the article
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol
Other bias	Unclear risk	No other bias detected
Outcomes at baseline similar?	Low risk	No significant differences (see table 3 in the article)
Characteristics at baseline similar?	Low risk	No significant differences (see table 3 in the article)
Adequate protection against contamination?	Low risk	Unlikely