Table 1.

Summary of Quality Assessment (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale): Non randomised studies

Study	Selection				Comparability of cohortsa	Outcome			Evidence qualityb
	Exposed cohort representative	Non exposed cohort selection	Exposure ascertainment	Outcome not present at start		Assessment	Follow-up length	Follow up adequacy
Workforce
Zuily, 2010 [15]	*	*	*	*	**	*	*	*	High
Boom, 2012 [13]	*	*	*	*	**	*	*	*	High
NICOR, 2012 [12]	*	*	*	*	**	*	*	*	High
Comin-Colet, 2014 [16]	*	*	*	*	**	*	--	--	High
Primary care
Lee, 2010 [18]	*	*	*	*	**	*	*	*	High
Rosstad, 2013 [17]	*	*	*	*	--	--	--	--	Low
In-hospital studies
Williams, 2010 [21]	*	*	*	*	--	*	*	*	Low
Tuso, 2014 [22]	*	*	*	*	--	*	*	*	Low
In-hospital clinical audits/registries/quality improvement initiatives
Boutwell, 2011 [33]	*	*	*	*	--	NA	NA	NA	Low
Heidenreich 2012 [26]	*	*	*	*	**	*	*	*	High
Hansen, 2013 [32]	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	Moderate
H2H National Quality Improvement Initiative, 2015 (H2H program) [34]	*	*	*	*	--	NA	NA	NA	Low
Transitional care
Driscoll, 2011 [45]	*	*	*	*	**	*	*	*	High
Outpatient clinics
Fonarow, 2011 [51]	*	*	*	*	**	*	*	*	High
Hernandez, 2010 [49]	*	*	*	*	**	*	*	*	High
Fenner, 2014 [50]	*	*	*	*	--	-	*	*	Low
Telemonitoring programs
Piette, 2008 [60]	*	*	*	*	--	-	*	*	Low
Baker, 2013 [61]	*	*	*	*	**	*	*	*	High

NA not applicable as outcome data has not been reported at the time of the literature search

^aAlso includes controlling for potential confounders

^bEvidence quality

Low: downgrading from moderate to low based on design or lack of information in report

Moderate: study met selection criteria (4 stars), comparability (1 star and upgraded a level for 2 stars), and outcome assessment

High: upgrading from moderate to high based on comparability of 2 stars