Carter 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	Parallel‐arm randomised clinical trial
Participants	137 participants based in Australia aged ≥ 18 years with type 2 diabetes who were overweight or obese (BMI ≥ 27). Inclusion criteria: adults (≥18 years of age) with type 2 diabetes who were overweight or obese (BMI ≥ 27 [calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared]) Exclusion criteria: pregnant or breastfeeding.
Interventions	2‐arm trial Intervention (n = 70): intermittent energy restriction group followed a diet of 500 to 600 kcal/day for 2 days of the week and followed their usual diet for the other 5 days. Comparator (n = 67): continuous energy restriction
Outcomes	Body weight, BMI, HbA1c
Notes	Type of paper: abstract Funding: Ms Carter was supported by a University of South Australia postgraduate award. Dr Clifton was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council principal research fellowship.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote:"Randomization was completed using an online generated random number allocation sequence and was not blinded; participants were allocated to groups by the study dietitian according to the randomization schedule."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	There was lack of blinding when assigning the interventions to the participants; quote:"participants were allocated to groups by the study dietitian."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Since this trial was a dietary intervention study, it was not feasible for participants or all study personnel to be blinded to the group assignment
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	High rates of dropout; quote: "97 participants (70.8%) completed the study, and the dropout rates were similar in both groups (21 participants [31.3%] in the continuous energy restriction group and 19 participants [27.1%] in the intermittent energy restriction group; P = .71)."
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Not stated.
Other bias	Low risk	Nothing to note.