Alvarez 2001.

Study characteristics
Methods	Cluster‐RT (randomisation at the pharmacy level) Study duration: 1 year
Participants	735 at beginning of the study, 600 at the end of the study (data are on the 600 reported below) Setting: community pharmacies Diagnostic criteria: CHD Age (years) (mean): intervention group: 64.8 years; control group: 65.8 years Sex female n (%): intervention group: 79 (29.5%); control group: 94 (29%). Country: Spain Comorbidity: not reported Sociodemographics: not reported Ethnicity: not reported Date of study: not reported
Interventions	1 intervention group Intervention group: pharmacies allocated to that group provided pharmaceutical care, consisting of the prevention, identification and solution of medication‐related problems. Control group: care as usual Pharmaceutical care consisted of the following: offering the pharmaceutical care service to participants and to their corresponding GPs, initial interview and assessment of the therapeutic plan, registration of data during the subsequent visits in order to allow the identification of medication‐related problems, and intervention to solve the problem.
Outcomes	Frequency of hospital emergency room visits, number of people admitted to hospital and length‐of‐stay in ICU, all of them due to coronary causes (data obtained from external sources) Health‐related QoL score (SF‐36, measured before and after the intervention) Participant knowledge of CHD risk factors (only measured at the end of the study) Participant knowledge of their drugs, and subjective perception of the anticoagulant drugs and beta‐blockers (only measured at the end of the study) Satisfaction with pharmaceutical care service and perception of pharmacist’s professional competence (only measured at the end of the study)
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported. Pharmacists may have been blinded, as they all received training on methods to treat CHD (in order to ensure that differences after the intervention are due to the intervention per se and not due to differences in theoretical knowledge on methods to treat CHD).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	High proportion of incomplete outcome data for most to the measures
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes were reported
Protection against contamination bias	Unclear risk	Unclear
Other bias	High risk	For most of the outcome measures no pre‐intervention data were collected. We considered other bias due to cluster randomisation.