Myasoedova 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised trial, USA.
Participants	Adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Interventions	Flare Assessment in Rheumatoid Arthritis (FLARE‐RA) PROM assessment with  nurse‐led counselling or an expedited visit with a rheumatology provider offered to patients in the intervention arm who indicated they were in flare versus usual care.   Intervention features Multiple simple feedback (one PROM at multiple times) PROM(s) used as intervention: FLARE‐RA (devised and validated to improve the detection of current and recent flares in rheumatoid arthritis) Constructs measured: Health related Quality of Life, Symptoms, Functioning, other (social and emotional wellbeing) Instrument categories/domains: Generic, Domain/Disease specific (cancer)   Administration features Where PROMs administered: Unclear How administered: Self‐administered Format of PROMs questionnaire(s): Paper   Feedback features Format of PROMs feedback: Unclear How often information fed back: 4 times Who information fed back to: Clinicians Information fed back: Scores, Management recommendations
Outcomes	Primary outcome: Flare rate by OMERACT 9 definition. Secondary outcomes: disease activity, remission, flare by provider opinion, treatment change, patient satisfaction, musculoskeletal ultrasound.
Notes	This work was financially supported by a grant from Pfizer (Grant ID 15322005). The study period was not reported. Conflicts of interest were reported as follows: Disclosures Elena Myasoedova: no disclosures or COI Cynthia S. Crowson: no disclosures or COI Rachel E. Giblon: no disclosures or COI Kathleen McCarthy‐Fruin: no disclosures or COI Daniel E. Schaffer: no disclosures or COI Kerry Wright: no disclosures or COI Eric L. Matteson: Grant/Research/Clinical Trial Support (rheumatoid arthritis) Genentech, Mesoblast, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd Editorial functions: UpToDate John M. Davis, III: Grant/Research/Clinical Trial Support (rheumatoid arthritis) Pfizer
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Block randomisation was by a computer‐generated random number algorithm prepared by a statistician
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Unblinded by nature of intervention.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Baseline outcome measurements similar	Low risk	Adjusted analysis.
Baseline characteristics similar	Low risk	Baseline characteristics similar.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Intention‐to‐treat protocol.
Was study protected against contamination	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol not published.