Gossec 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised trial, France
Participants	320 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in 13 rheumatology centres across France.
Interventions	Online interactive electronic e‐health platform developed to allow patient self‐assessment and self‐monitoring.   Intervention features Multiple complex feedback (multiple PROMs at multiple times)  PROM(s) used as intervention: RAPID3 Health Assessment Questionnaire, RA Impact of Disease scores, as well as symptoms as free text Constructs measured: Health related Quality of Life, Symptoms, Functioning Instrument categories/domains: Generic, Domain/Disease specific (rheumatoid arthritis)   Administration features Where PROMs administered: Non‐clinical setting How administered: Self‐administered Format of PROMs questionnaire(s): Electronic   Feedback features Format of PROMs feedback: Electronic How often information fed back: Patients not prompted, at their discretion how many times they recorded information and received feedback. Who information fed back to: Patients (who can share with clinicians at their instigation) Information fed back: Scores, Previous scores, Interpretation guidance
Outcomes	Main outcome: change in patient‐physician inter‐ actions, assessed using the Perceived Efficacy in Patient–Physician Interactions questionnaire (PEPPI‐5), over 12 months.
Notes	The study was funded by UCB France and e‐Health Services Sanoia. The study period was between June 2014 and April 2016. Conflicts of interest were not reported.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No mention of how randomisation was done.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information about randomisation.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Due to nature of intervention not possible to blind patients and personnel.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Due to nature of the intervention blinding of outcomes not possible: PROM used for feedback also used to assess outcome, patients were aware they received the intervention.
Baseline outcome measurements similar	Low risk	Outcome scores in Table 2 similar at baseline.
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	No sig differences between groups.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Missing data were imputed using last observation carried forward.
Was study protected against contamination	Low risk	Control group not informed of the intervention.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Primary and secondary outcomes reported in the results.