Abramowitz 1982.

Methods	STUDY DESIGN: ITS Risk of Bias: MEDIUM
Participants	PROVIDERS: all physicians in hospital PARTICIPANTS: all adult patients in the hospital CLINICAL PROBLEM: receiving treatment with target antibiotics SETTING: single university hospital in the USA
Interventions	FORMAT, Interventions: educational meetings with dissemination of materials; audit and feedback; educational outreach by review and recommend change Intervention Functions: education; enablement; persuasion DELIVERER: pharmacist COMPARISON: 9 months' pre‐intervention. Usual care DESIRED CHANGE: reduce inappropriate
Outcomes	PRESCRIBING: Choice: decrease in use of cefoxitin and cefamandole COST: total cost of 6 target antibiotics (calculated from data in Tables 1 and 2)
Notes	FINANCIAL SUPPORT: no information provided ADDITIONAL DATA: no response from authors to request for additional data
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Intervention independent (ITS) ?	Unclear risk	Not stated.
Analysed appropriately (ITS) ?	Low risk	Re‐analysed. Not done in original paper (comparison of means, uncontrolled before‐after).
Shape of effect pre‐specified (ITS) ?	Low risk	Done, intended effect was decrease in primary outcome and point of analysis was point of intervention.
Unlikely to affect data collection (ITS) ?	Low risk	Done, data were from routine systems and unlikely to change over study period.
Knowledge of the allocation adequately prevented(ITS)?	Low risk	Done, data were from routine systems and unlikely to change over study period.
Incomplete outcome data addressed (ITS) ?	Low risk	Done, data were from routine systems and unlikely to change over study period.
Free of selected reporting (ITS) ?	Low risk	Done, data were from routine pharmacy systems database.
Free of other bias (ITS) ?	Low risk	Price of target antibiotics constant over the study period.