Rasmussen 2005.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial with one intervention arm and 2 control arms
Participants	Patients: This study was set in Copenhagen, Denmark. In 2001, a random sample of subjects was sent a questionnaire to diagnose asthma. A power calculation was performed. Letters were posted until 300 adults aged 18 to 45 had been diagnosed with asthma on the basis of a combination of respiratory symptoms and at least one objective measurement (i.e. hyperresponsiveness to methacholine or peak expiratory flow variability)
Interventions	Intervention: This group were given electronic diary, an asthma action plan and a decision support system for the physician. Patients were given a Peak Flow Meter and taught how to fill in a daily diary and respond to the computer’s advice. Physicians gave instructions via e‐mail or telephone to the participant. Control 1. Specialist care: The specialists taught the patients how to adjust their medication on the basis of a peak flow meter and written action plan Control 2: GP: The GP group were asked to contact their GP and pass on a letter describing the study and giving the test results. GPs in Copenhagen had been sent a circular about asthma and GINA guidelines in the past.
Outcomes	Outcomes: 1. Quality of Life as assessed by AQLQ 2. Other questionnaire based outcomes: asthma self‐care, smoking, education, salary, sick leave and hospitalisations. Respiratory symptoms current medication, compliance and adverse reactions. 3. Lung function as carried out at baseline and 6 months and airway responsiveness with methacholine
Notes	The selection of participants was unusual as they came directly from the community and not from previous diagnosis by a physician or GP as in most other studies. This has the benefit of standardised diagnosis and avoids under‐diagnosis which may be a problem in the general population, however it may have implications when synthesising results from other studies. Participants in all 3 groups had to cover the costs of the medication prescribed, this may have been a problem for some patients and caused a bias.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	“Patients were randomised consecutively”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	“sealed envelope technique”
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Impossible to blind participants and no evidence of attempts to blind outcome assessors or data analysers
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Of the 300 patients randomised, 253 patiens completed both the screening and follow‐up visits.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Not all of the results from the questionnaires above are reported
Other bias	High risk	See notes above