Campos 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: Randomised controlled trial Study grouping: Parallel‐group Duration of study: 4 weeks run‐in period + 12 weeks
Participants	Baseline Characteristics High‐added sugar intake Number of participants at baseline: 13 Number lost to follow‐up: 0 Number analysed: 13 Age, mean: Not reported Women, %: 42.9 BMI, mean: 30.6 Low‐added sugar intake Number of participants at baseline: 18 Number lost to follow‐up: 4 Number analysed: 14 Age, mean: Not reported Women, %: 53.8 BMI, mean: 31.5 Overall Number of participants at baseline: 31 Number lost to follow‐up: 4 Number analysed: 27 Age, mean: Not reported Women, %: 48.1 BMI, mean: 31.1 Included criteria: Male and female; BMI greater than 25 kg/m2; daily consumption of two or more 22‐oz SSBs Excluded criteria: Not reported Pretreatment: Two groups (IHCL < 60 & > 60) which were significantly different at baseline
Interventions	Intervention Characteristics High‐added sugar intake Dose: Habitual intake of SSBs Type of sugar: Sucrose Type: Participants received beverages on a weekly basis. Otherwise, diet and beverage intake ad libitum Low‐added sugar intake Dose: Replace habitual intake of SSBs with ASBs Type of sugar: Artificial sweeteners Type: Same
Outcomes	Secondary outcomes: Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, HDL‐cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting plasma glucose
Identification	Sponsorship source: The Swiss National Foundation for Science the Fondation Raymond Berger pourla recherché sur le diabéte et les maladies métaboliques, Lausanne, Switzerland Country: Switzerland Setting: Not reported Authors name: Vanessa Campos Institution: Department of Physiology, Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne Email: luc.tappy@unil.ch Address: Not reported
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement Comment: The study stated that randomisation was stratified by sex, but the method was not described in more detail.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Judgement Comment: No information provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Judgement Comment: No information provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Judgement Comment: No information provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Judgement Comment: Individuals lost to follow‐up in ASB group only, no reasons for attrition given
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Judgement Comment: Study protocol registered on clinicaltrials.gov. No identified major deviations between protocol and published article
Other bias	Low risk	Participants returned packages in order to ensure dietary compliance.