Graves 2015

Methods	Random allocation Unblinded Study duration: 8 weeks Drop out: 4% Location: UK Recruitment: Consent was sought from 11 departmental managers for employee recruitment. All employees in consenting departments received an overview of the study and participant information sheet, and were invited to a study information session via an email from the research team.
Participants	Population: Office workers from one organisation (Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK). Employees within the approached departments were predominantly administrative staff. Intervention group: 26 participants Control group: 21 participants Demographics: Mean age: Intervention 38.8 (SD 9.8) years, Control 38.4 (SD 9.3) years 89% in intervention group and 67% in control group were females BMI: Intervention (kg/m²): Intervention 67.4 (SD 13.8), control 70.5 (SD 16.4)
Interventions	Duration of intervention: 8 weeks Intervention: Sit‐stand desk combined with face‐to‐face training and ergonomic information. Control: no intervention
Outcomes	Outcome name, measurement time/tool (units of measurement) Sitting time, standing and walking time (minutes/day) measured by paper‐based diary to record Vascular outcomes: B‐mode images of the brachial artery Plasma glucose, triglycerides and total cholesterol Musculoskeletal outcomes on a Likert scale from 0 (no discomfort) to 10 (extremely uncomfortable) Acceptability and feasibility
Notes	Ergotron Ltd provided the sit‐stand workstation but had no involvement on the provenance, commissioning, conduct or findings of the study. No other financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Participants were randomised using a randomised block design and random number table.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	One member of the research team assigned the participants to a treatment arm, based on a design and table with alternating scheme.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Reaserchers were aware of the allocation and participants may have also been aware of the allocation due to the nature of the intervention.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Sitting and other activities were assessed via ecological momentary assessment diaries (EMA). Participants receiving the intervention would have been aware of the goals set and the intention of the intervention and may have misreported outcomes.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The authors conducted a per‐protocol analysis and excluded participants from analyses for outcomes to which they did not contribute data. For workplace sitting, standing and walking, the per‐protocol analysis was compared with an intention‐to‐treat analysis, as a sensitivity analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes mentioned in the method section were reported.
Baseline comparability/ imbalance	Low risk	Groups were comparable at baseline except for a higher proportion of women in the intervention group (89% versus 67% in the control group).
Validity of outcome measure	Low risk	Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) diaries were used to report sitting time at work.