Meyer 2012.

Methods	Setting: 151 general practices, Germany Recruitment: smoking patients attending practice
Participants	3215 patients (113 excluded), age 18+, who reported any tobacco smoking within last 6 months 44% female, average cpd not stated, average age 41, 38% pre‐contemplators
Interventions	∙ Brief advice from practitioner (10 minutes) plus stage of change‐specific self‐help manuals ∙ Two individually tailored computer‐generated letters based on stage of change, plus self‐help manuals as per first bullet above ∙ 1 plus 2
Outcomes	Abstinence at 12 months, self‐reported as prolonged for previous 6 months Validation: none
Notes	3 vs 1 used as test of individually tailored self‐help as adjunct to advice 2 vs 1 in Analysis 4.1; direct comparison of tailored materials and advice
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Cluster‐randomised by practice Practices randomly assigned before recruitment Study authors note: "randomization was seriously undermined by obviously different mechanisms of patient selection for each study condition"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Practices not blind to condition when patients recruited; differential recruitment rates by condition
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	See above
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	30% dropout in group 1, 21% in group 2, 29% in group 3 Study authors report that sensitivity analyses regarding assumptions about participants lost to follow‐up showed "same patterns of results"