Little 2013b.

Study characteristics
Methods	Clinical setting: see Little 2013a Single‐ or multicentre study: see Little 2013a Country of study: see Little 2013a Unit of allocation: see Little 2013a Inclusion criteria: see Little 2013a Exclusion criteria: see Little 2013a Follow‐up: see Little 2013a
Participants	Number of clusters (n): not applicable Number of participants (n): 752 (as in Table B of the article) Participant characteristics: age (distribution): not reported; female participants (%): not reported; clinical severity distribution of Centor/McIsaac score: not reported.
Interventions	Management in intervention group(s): RADT in combination with clinical examination/scoring system Type of RADT system used: see Little 2013a Commercial name and brand of the RADT: see Little 2013a Management in control group(s): clinical grounds with a scoring system ("Score 1")
Outcomes	Primary outcome(s): see Little 2013a Secondary outcome(s): see Little 2013a
Notes	See Little 2013a
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Patients were individually randomised with a web based computer randomisation service to one of three groups (see below). Randomisation used permuted block sizes of 3, 6, 9, and 12, which were also randomly chosen."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Web‐based computer randomisation
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding is impossible in this context, and this lack of blinding is likely to influence the outcome.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Blinding is impossible in this context, and this lack of blinding is likely to influence the outcome.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	There are discrepancies between participants included in the initial assessments and in the follow‐up (20% to 25% reduction in participants assessed for the outcome “antibiotic use” compared to initial number of participants), without any explanation.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes mentioned in the Methods section are presented in the Results section. There is concordance between protocol and article.
Other bias	Low risk	None