Godino 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT
Participants	Participants: overweight or obese college students from three universities in San Diego (n = 404)Age range: 18‐35 years Recruitment: students were recruited at the three college campuses via a combination of print (e.g. newspapers, flyers, posters, and magnets) and digital (e.g. emails, electronic bulletins, websites, and Facebook) advertisements. Additionally, in‐person recruitment was done at student orientations and health fairs and was coordinated with real‐time monitoring of online interest form submissions.Eligibility: eligible students were adults aged 18–35 years. They had a BMI of between 25·0 kg/m² and 34·9 kg/m², used Facebook or were willing to begin, owned a personal computer, owned a smartphone, used text messaging, and were willing to attend measurement visits in San Diego over 2 years.Country: USA
Interventions	Intervention: multi‐component (n = 202) Weight loss intervention delivered via Facebook, mobile apps, text messaging, emails, a website, and technology‐mediated communication with a health coach (the SMART intervention). Control: non‐social media (n = 202) Participants allocated to the control group were given access to a different website than intervention participants and were sent quarterly newsletters via email.
Outcomes	Main: Weight, BMI (kg/m²), waist circumference (cm), arm circumference (cm), systolic blood pressure (mm Hg), diastolic blood pressure (mm Hg), heart rate (beats per min), and the level of engagement (i.e. amount of use). Other outcomes measured: physical activity, sedentary behaviours, total dietary intake, eating behaviours related to weight management, sugar‐sweetened beverage consumption, eating away from home, quality of life, depression, self‐esteem,body image, psychosocial constructs related to physical activity and diet, social support and social network composition with Facebook data
Equity	High‐income country. Young adults
Notes	Health behaviours: not applicable. Authors report that intervention effects on physical activity and diet will be reported in another manuscript at a later date. Body function: weight was considered the most patient‐important outcome reported for this category. Psychological health: not applicable. Authors report that intervention effects on depression will be reported in another manuscript at a later date. Well‐being: not applicable. Authors report that intervention effects on quality of life will be reported in another manuscript at a later date. Mortality: not applicable. Secondary outcomes: not applicable.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	A statistician allocated participants using computer‐based permuted‐block randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocation was concealed from the participants, study staff, and investigators until the intervention was assigned.
Blinding of personnel	High risk	It was not possible to mask participants or the study staff that delivered the intervention
Blinding of participants	High risk	It was not possible to mask participants or the study staff that delivered the intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Study staff who measured participants and investigators who analysed study outcomes remained masked to the allocation throughout the study
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	16% were lost to follow‐up ‐ all analyses were done using an intention‐to‐treat framework and included all participants. To assess the potential effect of missing data on the primary outcome, a sensitivity analysis was done using an inclusive strategy.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	The primary aim of the intervention in the protocol is stated as 5% to 10% weight loss at 24 months but in the final report, this is reported in the secondary outcomes table.
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	The groups did not differ according to key demographic characteristics
Baseline outcome measurements similar	Low risk	The groups did not differ
Protection against contamination	High risk	Facebook data revealed that at least 30% participants in the control group were friends with one or more participants in the SMART intervention group. Depending on individual privacy settings, the control group could have viewed intervention‐related posts, comments, or likes.