Kullgren 2015.

Methods	Study design: RCT; 40 eligible, 32 randomised Study duration: 4 weeks Study follow‐up: 4 weeks
Participants	Country: USA Setting: community Paediatric transplant recipients Number: intervention group (16); control group (16) Mean age ± SD (years): 13.8± 5.4 years Sex (F): 44% Exclusion criteria: family did not speak English or if the child’s cognitive functioning would interfere with their ability to participate
Interventions	Intervention type classification: self‐monitoring eHealth intervention used: blue‐tooth, electronic monitor Intervention group Interactive water bottle Recall fluid intake for 3 days prior to commencement of study via a log and to keep daily diaries Calculates personal hydration needs, tracks real time fluid intake pacing throughout the day. Participant enters weight and bottle automatically calculates fluid requirements, this can be adjusted manually. HydraCoach prompts user to drink by continuously visually displaying% consumed in litres or ounces Standard care Control group Standard care Recall fluid intake for 3 days prior to commencement of study via a log and to keep daily diaries Given written information regarding fluid target and choices.
Outcomes	Outcome measures assessed at baseline and 1 month Fluid intake (Self‐reported ‐ reported intake, fluid goal achieved, fluid intake tracking ‐ diary) Biochemistry (BUN, sodium, creatinine ‐ % change over the study period)
Notes	Funding source: St. Louis Children’s Hospital Nursing Research Grant and the University of Michigan Charles Woodson Fund for Clinical Research
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Block randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Blinding of participants	High risk	Blinding not possible
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Blinding of personnel	Unclear risk	No reporting of blinding of personnel
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcome	Low risk	Biochemical measures of creatinine, BUN and sodium are objective
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes	High risk	Self‐reported measure
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No reported loss to follow up or incomplete diaries
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Other bias	High risk	small sample size ‐ population not generalisable, limited follow‐up time, control and intervention groups significantly different with respect to time since transplant, low uptake rate of the intervention