Ananda‐Rajah 2010.

Methods	STUDY DESIGN: ITS Risk of Bias: MEDIUM
Participants	PROVIDERS: all physicians in the medical‐surgical ICU PARTICIPANTS: all patients in the ICU CLINICAL PROBLEM: reduction in use of broad‐spectrum antibiotics considered high risk for selection of MRSA SETTING: 1 university hospital in Australia
Interventions	FORMAT, Interventions: educational outreach by review and recommend change Intervention Functions: education, enablement, persuasion DELIVERER: AMT COMPARISON: usual care DESIRED CHANGE: decrease excessive
Outcomes	PRESCRIBING: Choice: use of broad‐spectrum antibiotics in DDD/1000 OBD MICROBIAL: MRSA bacteraemia rate
Notes	FINANCIAL SUPPORT: none declared. Competing Interest: none declared ADDITIONAL DATA: no response from authors to request for additional data Microbial Risk of Bias: HIGH, case definition Low, planned intervention Low, other infection control High. Infection control interventions close to antibiotic stewardship interventions clearly documented in Figure 1.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Intervention independent (ITS) ?	High risk	Other changes are clearly documented in Figure 1. This includes an outbreak of Acinetobacter infection co‐incident with the stewardship intervention, which resulted in appointment of 2 infection control practitioners and associated interventions. The additional staff could have influenced prescribing outcome.
Analysed appropriately (ITS) ?	Low risk	Segmented regression analysis
Shape of effect pre‐specified (ITS) ?	Low risk	Point of intervention is point of analysis.
Unlikely to affect data collection (ITS) ?	Low risk	Pharmacy and microbiology routine data
Knowledge of the allocation adequately prevented(ITS)?	Low risk	Pharmacy and microbiology routine data
Incomplete outcome data addressed (ITS) ?	Low risk	Pharmacy and microbiology routine data
Free of selected reporting (ITS) ?	Low risk	Pharmacy and microbiology routine data
Free of other bias (ITS) ?	Low risk	> 1 year data pre‐ and postintervention