Haynes 1976.

Methods	Random allocation by 'minimization', a method stated to be impervious to bias
Participants	This was the second phase of a 2 phase study. Male steel company employees with high blood pressure (when sitting quietly on 3 separate days, a standard series of fifth phase diastolic blood‐pressures were > 95 mm Hg) who were treated with antihypertensive medications during the first phase of the study were included in the second phase if they were non‐adherent with prescribed antihypertensive therapy (pill counts less than 80%), and not at goal blood pressures (fifth phase < 90 mm Hg) in the 6th month of treatment of phase 1.
Interventions	Patients in the experimental group were all taught the correct method to measure their own blood pressures, were asked to chart their home blood pressures and pill taking, and taught how to tailor pill taking to their daily habits and rituals. These men also visited fortnightly at the work site a high‐school graduate with no formal health professional training who reinforced the experimental maneuvers and rewarded improvements in adherence and blood pressure. Rewards included allowing participants to earn credit, for improvements in adherence and blood pressure, that could be applied towards the eventual purchase of the blood pressure apparatus they had been loaned for the trial. Control patients received none of these interventions
Outcomes	An unobtrusive pill count done in the patient's home by a home visitor was the method of determining medication adherence. Adherence rates are reported as the proportion of pills prescribed for the 12th month of therapy which were removed from their containers and, presumably, swallowed by the patients. In the 12th month of treatment, patients were evaluated for adherence and blood pressure both at home and at the mill by examiners who were 'blind' to their experimental group allocation
Notes	―
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Minimization used. (pg 1265) "39 such men were allocated by "minimisation" either to a control group or to an experimental group. Minimisation allows the simultaneous consideration of a large series of matching characteristics when allocating subjects to experimental and control groups, thereby minimising (using randomisation in the case of ties) between‐group differences. The method is immune to experimenter bias and has been shown to substantially outperform simple randomisation in reducing the imbalance between treatment groups that has troubled several earlier randomised trials."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Minimization used. (pg 1265) "39 such men were allocated by "minimisation" either to a control group or to an experimental group. Minimisation allows the simultaneous consideration of a large series of matching characteristics when allocating subjects to experimental and control groups, thereby minimising (using randomisation in the case of ties) between‐group differences. The method is immune to experimenter bias and has been shown to substantially outperform simple randomisation in reducing the imbalance between treatment groups that has troubled several earlier randomised trials."
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol available
Other bias	High risk	Possible confounding bias identified by the authors in the Discussion portion of the paper. (pg 1268) "We are not satisfied, however, that this investigation is free from a fourth potential source of bias, and this is the confounding of the compliance‐improving strategies with the amount of attention shown to these patients. By design, phase‐II experimental patients received more attention (five hours, spread over six months) than phase‐II controls, and our review of the compliance literature suggests that simply spending more time with patients, regardless of the content of the interchange, is associated with increased compliance."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Adherence measure	Low risk	(PRIMARY) PILL COUNT ‐ Blinding was accounted for. (pg 1266) "At the end of phase 2 (in the twelfth month of treatment) patients were evaluated both at home and at the mill by examiners who were "blind" to their experimental group allocation."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Patient outcome	Low risk	(PRIMARY) BLOOD PRESSURE ‐ Outcome assessors were blinded to treatment group. (pg 1266) "At the end of phase II (in the twelfth month of treatment) patients were evaluated both at home and at the mill by examiners who were "blind" to their experimental group allocation."
Blinding of participants (performance bias) Adherence measure	Low risk	(PRIMARY) PILL COUNT ‐ Pill count done unobtrusively once, while patient not in room. (pg 1266) "...The home visitor verified each patient's doses while the patient was supplying a urine specimen (requested without prior warning), did an unobtrusive pill‐ count and compared it with a baseline established one month earlier."
Blinding of participants (performance bias) Patient outcome	Unclear risk	(PRIMARY) BLOOD PRESSURE ‐ Patient blinding is not reported
Blinding of personnel (performance bias) Adherence measure	Unclear risk	(PRIMARY) PILL COUNT ‐ No mention of blinding other study personnel
Blinding of personnel (performance bias) Patient outcome	Low risk	(PRIMARY) BLOOD PRESSURE ‐ Blinding of the outcome assessor is accounted for. (pg 1266) "At the end of phase II (in the twelfth month of treatment) patients were evaluated both at home and at the mill by examiners who were "blind" to their experimental group allocation."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Adherence measure	Low risk	(PRIMARY) PILL COUNT ‐ There are few missing outcome data; reason for missing data unrelated to intervention. (pg 1266) "1 control developed deep vein thrombosis and his hypotensive drugs were stopped; this patient was removed from the study, leaving 20 experimental patients and 18 controls."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Patient outcome	Low risk	(PRIMARY) BLOOD PRESSURE ‐ There are few missing outcome data; reason for missing data unrelated to intervention. (pg 1266) "1 control developed deep vein thrombosis and his hypotensive drugs were stopped; this patient was removed from the study, leaving 20 experimental patients and 18 controls."