Study	Interventions compared	Outcome	Int pre (%)	C pre (%)	Int post n/N (%)	C post n/N (%)	Relative % change (post)	Int vs C absolute change from pre (%)	ARD	Absolute % change (post)	P value
Eccles 2001	A&F + ed mat vs ed mat	X‐ray concordant with guideline (lumbar)	‐	‐	64/181 (35.3)	120/275 (43.6)	‐	‐	‐	‐8.3	NS
	Reminder + ed mat vs ed mat	X‐ray concordant with guideline (lumbar)	‐	‐	35/85 (41.2)	120/275 (43.6)	‐	‐	‐	‐2.4	NS
	A&F + ed mat + reminder vs ed mat	X‐ray concordant with guideline (lumbar)	‐	‐	89/247 (36.0)	120/275 (43.6)	‐	‐	‐	‐7.6	NS
Robling 2002	Ed meet + ed mat vs ed mat	MRI concordant with guideline (lumbar and knee combined)	‐	‐	30/38 (79)	42/53 (79)	‐	‐	‐	0.0	NS
	A&F + ed mat vs ed mat	MRI concordant with guideline (lumbar and knee combined)	‐	‐	28/42 (67)	42/53 (79)	‐	‐	‐	‐12.0	NS
	A&F + ed meet + ed mat vs ed mat	MRI concordant with guideline (lumbar and knee combined)	‐	‐	35/49 (71)	42/53 (79)	‐	‐	‐	‐8.0	NS
Schectman 2003*	A&F + ed mat + ed meet + pt med vs pt med	Lumbar x‐ray (% of patients received)	(31.0)	(21.0)	(19.0)	(18.0)	5.6	12.0 vs 3	9.0	‐1.0	UAE
		Lumbar CT or MRI  (% of patients received)	(7.6)	(5.6)	(5.6)	(7.1)	21.1	2.0 vs ‐1.5	3.5	1.5	UAE
		Lumbar x‐ray not consistent with guideline	(14.5)	(8.2)	(8.1)	(8.6)	5.8	6.4 vs ‐0.4	6.8	0.5	UAE
		Lumbar CT or MRI not consistent with guideline	(5.7)	(3.5)	(3.5)	(5.4)	35.2	2.2 vs ‐1.9	4.1	1.9	UAE
			Median effect size for Schectman 2003							1.0