Windt 2010.

Methods	CBA, patient recruitment: general population (i.e. clients of health insurance) Setting: primary care practices throughout Germany (region covered by one health insurance company)
Participants	Control patients: n = 317, women: 44.2%, mean age: 36.5, asthma severity: not reported, FEV1: not reported, ICS use: not reported Intervention patients: n = 317, women: 48.6%, mean age: 36.5, asthma severity: not reported, FEV1: not reported, ICS use: not reported
Interventions	Name and duration of programme: nationwide asthma disease management programme (duration varies according to specific programme) Intervention group components* Organisational ‐ patients: structured follow‐up Organisational ‐ healthcare professionals or system: use of guidelines; information technology (electronic reports); feedback to physicians Patient education: education sessions Frequency: not clear Healthcare professionals involved: not clear Control group components Usual care Number of components and dominant component: ≥ 5, organisational ‐ healthcare professionals or system
Outcomes	Organisational level Process: % patients with prescription of: ICS, ICS as single agent, ICS/LABA in a single inhaler, controller to total medication ratio ≥ 0.5, oral corticosteroids, theophylline, leukotriene receptor antagonists, cromolyn combined with LABA, LABAs without ICSs Healthcare utilisation: % patients with emergency care (hospitalisations or ED visits), % patients doctor hopping (with an anti‐asthmatic drug prescription from at least 3 different providers) Time of outcome measurement: at 12 months
Notes	*All patients in the intervention group were enrolled in a German disease management programme, with the following obligatory elements; regular check‐ups, education sessions, use of guidelines, information technology (electronic reports), feedback to physicians
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Retrospective allocation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Retrospective allocation
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Claims data
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Data on all patients
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol not available
Other bias	Unclear risk	No other bias detected
Outcomes at baseline similar?	Low risk	Matched control group (compared with table 1)
Characteristics at baseline similar?	Low risk	Matched control group (compared with table 1)
Adequate protection against contamination?	Low risk	Contamination unlikely