Mellema 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised trial, USA
Participants	136 orthopaedic patients.
Interventions	Patients were randomly assigned to either receive feedback about the Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference computer‐adaptive test (CAT) prior to the visit with the hand surgeon or not.   Intervention features Single simple feedback (one PROM at a single time) PROM(s) used as intervention: (PROMIS) Pain Interference computer‐adaptive test (CAT) Constructs measured: Symptoms, Functioning Instrument categories/domains: Generic   Administration features Where PROMs administered: Clinical setting (e.g. waiting room, office, etc) 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, Patients Information fed back: Scores, Interpretation guidance
Outcomes	Main outcome: patient satisfaction with the consultation Other outcomes: patient‐physician communication
Notes	No funding was reported for this study. 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 random numbers and using a permuted block approach
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Patient and physician were not blinded to the assignment of intervention research fellows, and research fellows that have evaluated the patient‐physician communication were aware of the allocation of intervention.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Outcome data collected by research fellows. And research fellows that have evaluated the patient‐physician communication were aware of the allocation of intervention.
Baseline outcome measurements similar	Low risk	The participants of the intervention and control groups also had similar baseline scores.
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	The intervention and control groups were well balanced.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not clearly reported.
Was study protected against contamination	Unclear risk	Only one surgeon at a orthpaedic outpatient clinic participated in the study.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	None apparent.