Shah 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: open‐label randomised trial; design not clearly reported Duration: not reported Setting: 1 hospital, Evanston, Illinois, USA Trial registration: not reported
Participants	Population: 50 people with asthma randomised to computer training, written training or no training (n in each group not reported) Age: not reported Baseline asthma severity: not reported Inclusion criteria: not reported Exclusion criteria: not reported Percentage withdrawn: not reported Other allowed medication: not reported
Interventions	Computer training: Participants completed a "computer based training solution" such as those at www.use‐inhalers.com Written training: "traditional written instruction on inhaler technique" No training: "our controls were patients without any training and patients given written training"
Outcomes	Outcomes measured: inhaler technique Technique assessment method used: "videotapes of patients using their inhalers before and after training were created and analysed by a fixed rubric and given a score"
Notes	Type of publication: conference abstract Funding: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"patients were recruited in a randomized, unblinded enrolment process." ‐ no further details
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	"randomized, unblinded enrolment process" ‐ implies that allocation was not concealed
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Described as 'unblinded'
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Described as 'unblinded', although 'Inhaler technique was assessed by "fixed rubric", which may have controlled for some bias, depending on who was making the assessment and whether they knew what sort of training the participant had received
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Drop‐out not reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	No prospective trial registration identified. Minimal details reported as conference abstract only
Other bias	Low risk	None noted