Wilson 2016.

Methods	Study design: RCT Country: USA Recruitment: VAMC patients were sent a letter and were called to complete a telephone survey Study dates: 2017
Participants	Baseline characteristics (n = 310) Mean age: 57 years Female: 10.9% (N = 34) High school or lower education: 34.2% (N = 106) FTND: 4 White: 98.4% (N = 305) Inclusion criteria: ≥ 18 years of age, enrolled at Durham VAMC for ongoing medical care, current smoker willing to make a quit attempt in the next 30 days, and English speaking Exclusion criteria: no access to telephone, severely impaired hearing or speech, active diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, extended serious illness, and current hospitalisation
Interventions	Control: cognitive‐behavioral telephone counselling and a tele‐medicine clinic for access to NRT Intervention: as above, plus a mobile contingency management app. Participants were required to record CO readings, upload readings via the app, and use the app to check receipt of compensation and abstinence incentives. Incentives were provided for submitting CO readings pre‐QD and for abstinence post‐QD
Outcomes	Definition of abstinence: self‐reported prolonged abstinence at 6 months
Funding source	Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service
Conflicts of interest	Quote: "The authors have no conflicts of interest to report"
Notes	Only published on clinicaltrials.gov (trials register) at this point
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Permuted block randomisation generated a priori using computerised methods
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomisation was concealed from study staff for each participant until completion of baseline measures; however details of how this was concealed were not given
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Outcome measures collected by phone surveys. There was minimal contact with researchers.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	18/156 in intervention group lost to follow‐up, 15/154 in control group lost to follow‐up.