Strand 2011

Methods	RCT Accrual: 2002 to 2005 Setting: tertiary centre Follow‐up: 60 months
Participants	110 participants (59 men and 51 women) curatively operated on for colorectal cancer Country: Sweden Setting: hospital
Interventions	Experimental arm: surgeon‐led follow‐up Control arm: nurse‐led follow‐up
Outcomes	Participant satisfaction Resource use Medical safety
Notes	A nurse and surgeon performed follow‐up in the same way: 6 monthly visits for 3 years, then annually up to 5 years. Symptom enquiry occurred at each visit (bloods and CEA as indicated) Abdomen US and CXR (replaced by CT in latter half of the study) at 1 and 3 years If "clean" colon was established preoperatively, colonoscopy at 5 years
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: "Randomization to nurse (ES) or surgeon (KS) was performed using closed envelopes in blocks of four." Comment: the paper reported no more details, so we judged this domain to be at unclear risk of bias.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	The stoma therapist (IN) provided written and verbal information and conducted the randomisation. We judged this domain to be at unclear risk of bias.
Blinding of participants and personnel	Low risk	The study did not mention blinding of participants and personnel; it was probably not done, but unlikely to have introduced bias.
Blinding of outcome assessment	Low risk	The study did not mention blinding of outcome assessment, but it was unlikely to have been done.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition and exclusions)	Unclear risk	Quote (page 1001): "All patients completed the questionnaires." Comment: the paper reports that there was no attrition. Quote (page 1001): "One hundred and thirteen (113) consecutive patients were asked to participate in the study. Of these, three patients refused to participate, 56 were allocated to surgeon follow‐up and 54 to nurse‐led follow‐up." Comment: it is not clear if these were postrandomisation or prerandomisation exclusions.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Outcomes prespecified Participant satisfaction Resource utilisation Medical safety Actually reported Resource utilisation Participant satisfaction Medical safety and costs As we did not have access to the study protocol, we judged this domain to be at unclear risk of bias.
Other sources of bias	Unclear risk	We detected no other bias.