Antoniades 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: single‐centre, single‐blinded, parallel individual randomised controlled trial in Australia Duration: 52 weeks Setting: tertiary care hospital
Participants	Population: 44 adults recruited from a metropolitan tertiary care hospital Baseline characteristics: % Male: 45 RM + SBP and 45 SBP, Mean age: 68 RM + SBP and 70 SBP, % White: not reported, % African: not reported, % LTOT: not reported, % Home oxygen: not reported, % Anxiety or depression: not reported, Baseline medications: not reported, FEV₁ (% mean): RM + SBP 0.91, SBP 0.66, FVC (% mean): RM + SBP 2.13, SBP 1.98, FEV₁/FVC (% mean): RM + SBP 39.9, SBP 32, Current smokers (n): SBP + RM 0/22 and SBP 6/22, GOLD stage: moderate to severe on COPD criteria, COPD exacerbations lasting 12 months: not reported, Hospitalisations in past 12 months: RM + SBP: 2 (1 to 4) and SBP: 1 (1 to 2) Inclusion criteria: moderate to severe COPD diagnosed by COPD criteria, at least 1 hospitalisation in previous 12 months, fluent English, able to use keyboard and mouse, willing to use computer in self‐management, ambulant, living independently Exclusion criteria: significant comorbidities including cancer, renal failure, and cognitive impairment
Interventions	Run‐in: initial home training was provided to all participants by a nursing informatics project manager; measurements taken at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months Treatment arms In‐home telemonitoring of daily measured physiological variables and recorded electronic diary of symptoms and medication usage via TeleMedCare System Standard best practice care following guidelines in Australia and New Zealand for clinical care, access to outreach nursing, written action plan, and access to pulmonary rehabilitation
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: hospital admissions (COPD‐related or non‐COPD‐related), inpatient bed‐days, quality of life (SF‐36 form and CRDQ form completed at 6 and 12 months) Secondary outcomes: 6‐minute walk distance (6MWD) measured at baseline and 12 months, adherence to daily monitoring, reproducibility of physiological measurements, patient acceptance of remote monitoring
Notes	Funding: Department of Human Services; Victoria, Australia Other identifier: ACTRN12611000112965
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Reported as randomised; designations were randomly generated and sequentially numbered, but it is unclear how the sequence was generated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Patients were randomly allocated to either group, using a set of sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes containing randomly generated designations
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Unable to blind patients and personnel due to nature of treatment
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Assumed that outcome assessors were not blinded because study was open‐label
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	27% vs 9% withdrawals in TM group vs standard best practice group, respectively
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcomes reported as planned; trial registered in Australian registry website
Other bias	Low risk	None