Kroenke 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised trial, USA
Participants	300 patients in general internal medicine and family practice clinics in an academic healthcare system.
Interventions	After completing the PROMIS symptom measures electronically immediately prior to their visit, the 300 study participants were randomised to a feedback group in which their clinician received a visual display of symptom scores or a control group in which scores were not provided to clinicians.   Intervention features Single simple feedback (one PROM at a single time) PROM(s) used as intervention: PROMIS (Patient‐Reported Outcome Measure Information System) Constructs measured: Symptoms Instrument categories/domains: Generic   Administration features Where PROMs administered: Clinical setting How administered: Self‐administered Format of PROMs questionnaire(s): Electronic   Feedback features Format of PROMs feedback: Paper How often information fed back: Once Who information fed back to: Clinicians Information fed back: Scores, Interpretation guidance
Outcomes	Main outcome: 3‐month change in composite SPADE score Other outcomes: individual symptom scores, symptom documentation in the clinic note, symptom‐specific clinician actions, and patient satisfaction
Notes	Supported by Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Contract ME‐1403‐12043. The study period was not reported. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer generated. participants were allocated to the feedback or control group in randomly alternating computer‐generated blocks of 2 and 4.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
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	Baseline variables were well balanced between groups.
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	Baseline charactereistics reported in text and table.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	85.3% follow‐up at 3‐month period.
Was study protected against contamination	Unclear risk	Clinicians were allocated within a clinic or clinics and it is possible that communication between intervention and control professionals could have occurred.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	None apparent.