Beich 2007.

Methods	Parallel group RCT: brief intervention versus inactive control. ITT: yes.
Participants	Setting: Denmark; general practice surgery. Participants aged 18 to 64 years, scheduled to see 39 general practitioners, AUDIT score between 8 and 21 (those with AUDIT > 12 were screened for dependency and referred if necessary); excluded if they reported weekly consumption > 35 drinks, had severe acute illness, or reading disability or spoke a foreign language, or illiterate, or had mental or physical impairment, or inebriated, or currently being treated for an alcohol use disorder, or pregnant; screened with AUDIT. Number randomised = 906; 67% male; other characteristics not reported for sample. At baseline: usual weekly consumption reported > 35 drinks = 24% of men, 17% of women; previous weekly consumption reported > 35 drinks = 38% of men, 32% of women; weekly binge drinking (defined as 6+ units) = 41% of men, 21% of women; monthly binge drinking = 82% of men, 69% of women.
Interventions	Both groups received AUDIT for screening, which also provided many baseline data, and a secondary baseline questionnaire (time not reported). Intervention group (N = 442) received one 10 minute session from the GP based on the ‘drink less’ protocol used by the WHO collaborative study on brief interventions, including feedback on present drinking, advice on reducing drinking with suggestions on how to do it, a self‐help booklet, and an open invitation for a follow‐up consultation at the earliest convenience. Control group (N = 464) received no feedback or intervention.
Outcomes	Mean number of drinks (12 g alcohol) in a "usual" week, mean number of drinks consumed last week, number of participants usually consuming over the recommended limit (21 units for men, 14 units for women), number of participants binge drinking (defined as 6+ units) at least once a week; all reported separately for men and women. Assessed at 12 months.
Funding source	This work was supported in part by grants from Alkoholpolitisk Kontaktudvalg (Danish Ministry and Board of Health), Forskningsfonden (Association of County Councils in Denmark), and Fonden til Laegevidenskabens Fremme.
Declaration of interests	Not reported.
Notes	Loss to follow‐up: Intervention group: 204/442 (46%). Control group: 165/464 (36%).
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Sequence generation not described.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Screening questionnaires went into a sealed envelope which had a symbol on the front which had to be uncovered scratch card style (p. 594).
Blinding of treatment providers	High risk	"Blinding was not feasible, either for participants and GPs, or for outcome assessment and statistical analysis" (p. 594).
Blinding of participants	High risk	"Blinding was not feasible, either for participants and GPs, or for outcome assessment and statistical analysis (p. 594).
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding was not feasible, either for participants and GPs, or for outcome assessment and statistical analysis" (p. 594).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Loss to follow‐up > 30%.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcomes specified in methods were reported in results.