Vagholkar 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Cluster‐randomised trial, parallel group (1:1)
Participants	People aged 45‐69 years without CVD, recruited from 34 general practices in urban Sydney, Australia Unit of randomisation: practice Exclusion criteria: insufficient English skills, cognitively impaired, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, diagnosed or treated CVD Total randomised: 34 clusters of 1074 participants (n = 18 practices with 567 participants in the intervention group, n = 16 practice with 507 participants in the comparison group) Mean age: 56 years, 58% women, 56% Anglo‐Celtic, 12% diabetes mellitus
Interventions	Intervention group: physicians received training on the importance of absolute risk assessment and use of a CVD risk calculator; participants received a 20‐30 min consultation that involved calculating cardiovascular risk and providing appropriate management based on risk level and current guidelines Comparison group: general health check
Outcomes	Primary outcome: antihypertensive medication prescription, lipid‐lowering medication prescription at 12 months Secondary outcomes: changes in blood pressure and blood lipids; self‐reported smoking; self‐reported physical activity levels; diet consumption Total analysed: 34 clusters of 906 participants (n = 18 practices with 475 participants in the intervention group; n = 15 practices with 431 participants in the comparison group) Follow‐up: 12 months
Study funding sources	National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
Notes	Only 685/1074 (64%) had values available for risk assessment
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"A person (U.J.) independent of the intervention and data collection conducted the allocation using a computer randomization program."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	See above
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Personnel not blinded to intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"Research staff collecting practice data were blinded to group allocation, as were patients."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Large amount of missing data. Only 64% of participants had values available for risk assessment
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Several outcomes (such as health‐related quality of life) mentioned in trial registry and protocol were not reported in this report
Other bias	Low risk	Other sources of bias not identified