Augestad 2013

Methods	RCT Accrual: 2007 to 2011 Median follow‐up: 24 months
Participants	110 participants (65 men and 45 women) surgically treated for colon cancer Dukes' A: 24 Dukes' B: 55 Dukes' C: 32 Country: Norway Setting: hospital and community
Interventions	Experimental arm: surgeon follow‐up Control: GP follow‐up The follow‐up intervals were the same.
Outcomes	Quality of life (measured using EORTC QLQ‐C30 and EuroQol‐5D (EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire: EQ‐5D) Cost‐effectiveness Time to cancer diagnosis
Notes	National follow‐up guidelines were applied in both study arms, and participants were followed for 2 years.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Patients are randomised to follow‐up either by their GP (intervention) or at the surgical clinic (controls)." Comment: the study did not report a description of the method used to generate randomisation sequence.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "...using a web‐based randomisation service and managed by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology." Comment: because the study used a web‐based method, we assumed that it was truly concealed.
Blinding of participants and personnel	Low risk	Quote (page 3): "Recruited patients were not informed about the other patients recruited in the same trial. Similarly, no information regarding trial progress and allocation was revealed to the participating GPs or surgeons. However, as GP‐organised follow‐up represented a new practice, blinding was not possible in the intervention arm." Comment: we judged this domain to be at low risk of bias.
Blinding of outcome assessment	Low risk	Quote (page 3): "The local trial investigator was not involved in the subsequent follow‐up appointments in any way."Comment: this indicated that the assessors were blinded to the treatment arm; therefore, we judged this domain to be at a low risk of bias.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition and exclusions)	Low risk	The study reported no exclusions, but detailed information with respect to attrition (detailed by arm and with reasons given) ensured that we judged this domain to be at low risk of bias.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Outcomes specified in the objectives EORTC QLQ‐C30 EQ‐5D EQ‐VAS Cost‐effectiveness Time to diagnosis of relapse The paper reported on all of these. We did not have access to the protocol, so judged this outcome to be at unclear risk of bias.
Other sources of bias	Unclear risk	We detected no other bias.