Beaulieu 2004.

Methods	Study design: RCT Unit of allocation: physicians Type of comparison: PEM only vs. nothing group A: control group B: guideline group C: guideline + recall Groups considered in review: A and B
Participants	Physicians Clinical speciality: general practice/family medicine, internal medicine, cardiology Level of training: fully trained Setting/country: mixed/Canada
Interventions	The PEM consisted of a 1‐page summary (developed by the College des Medecins du Quebec) of existing provincial guidelines for anti‐anginal therapy. This summary incorporated 3 key messages targeting the most problematic prescribing practices identified in our earlier cross‐sectional study, namely low prescribing rates for antiplatelet and hypolipaemic drugs and for β‐blockers in patients without apparent major contraindications. The key recommendations in the summary were: (i) to write a prescription for acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) for patients with stable angina; (ii) to control serum cholesterol, with a target value for LDL cholesterol < 2.6 mmol/L; and (iii) to favour β‐blockers as the first choice for anti‐angina medication. Data on prescribing rates for the 3 targeted medication classes by physicians practicing in the same regions as the participating physicians were also included in the 1‐page summary
Outcomes	2 process outcomes: prescription for β‐blockers prescription for antiplatelets
Notes	‐
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote, pg. 22: "the physicians identified in our previous study were randomly assigned, using computer‐generated random numbers, to one of three groups"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	COMMENT: the unit of allocation is by physician and allocation is performed on all units at the start of the study
Baseline characteristics similar (selection bias)	High risk	TABLE 1, pg. 24: "there was no significant difference in the distribution of the sexes and medical training amongst the study groups. There was a significant difference in the distribution of professional experience and mean number of patients in the database according to the physician's training amongst the groups"
Baseline outcome measurements similar (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information was provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote, pg. 23: "of the 3293 physicians in our initial study, 967 (29.4%) were not in the database in 1999, hence were considered lost to follow‐up. Thus 2326 (70.6%) were available for the current study (Figure 1). Since our database was anonymous, it was impossible to track down what happened to those physicians"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	The outcome was objective
Contamination protection (contamination bias)	High risk	Quote, pg. 30: "contamination might have occurred between the study groups, either directly (physicians in the intervention groups sharing information with physicians in the control groups) or indirectly (uptake of the guideline messages through the communication channels of various stakeholders and CME activities). Such contamination is indicated by our survey of a subsample of the physicians.24 In this study, 90% of respondents, including physicians in the control group, were aware of the guidelines, and 75% had participated in at least one CME activity on the topic during the previous 6 months"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All relevant outcomes in the methods section were reported in the results section
Other bias	Low risk	There was no evidence of other risks of bias