Zermansky 2001.

Methods	Randomised trial
Participants	1188 elderly patients (intervention 608; control 580) 4 general practices 1 pharmacist Leeds, United Kingdom Year of study: June 1999 to June 2000.
Interventions	Patients had 1 consultation with pharmacists to identify drugs, assess adherence, identify issues. Review active medical problems. Pharmacists could offer minor changes to treatment or could refer to general practitioner if recommendations were more major.
Outcomes	Number of repeat prescriptions Hospital admissions at 12 months
Notes	Funding source: NHS Research and Development National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment. Conflict of interest: None declared
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Those who consented were randomised to an intervention group (clinical review by pharmacist) or control group (normal care) by computer‐generated random numbers."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated random numbers
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All Outcomes/Outcome 1	High risk	Non‐blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All Outcomes/Outcome 1	Low risk	Changes to prescriptions seems unlikely to be biased.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Between group attrition < 10%. Overall completion rate > 80%.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes reported
Other bias	Low risk	None identified