Gattinger 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: cluster‐RCT Follow‐up: 10 weeks
Participants	Country: Switzerland Setting: 3 long‐term care facilities Inclusion criteria: cognitive impairment sleeping problem assessed by the nurse in charge and night shift nurse written informed consent of the person her‐ or himself or in case of cognitive incapacity a written informed consent of an authorised person Exclusion criteria: not reported Number of participants completing the study: 44 (IG 22, CG 22) Baseline characteristics: age (years, mean): IG 86.36 (SD 8.6), CG 8.68 (SD 5.2) gender (female): IG 16 (72.7%), CG 16 (72.7%) care level 1–4: IG 3 (13.6%), CG 6 (27.3%) care level 5–8: IG 14 (63.6%), CG 12 (54.5%) care level 9–12: IG 5 (22.7%), CG 4 (18.2%) Group differences: no differences between IG and CG in age, sex, length of stay, and care level. no differences reported in the residents' diseases and described medication, except for antipsychotics, which was significantly more often described in the IG.
Interventions	Open 2‐phase RCT: duration of first phase 10 weeks, second phase 3 months. Intervention: implementation of motion monitoring system, education (sleep and dementia, monitoring system), 3 sleep case conferences led by an advanced nurse practitioner and 2 sleep case conferences led by an internal registered nurse Control: education (sleep and dementia), 3 sleep case conferences led by an advanced nurse practitioner, 2 sleep case conferences led by an internal registered nurse
Outcomes	Sleepiness during daytime (EFAS) Sleep quality (PSQI) Mobility data during the night‐time through mobility monitoring system
Funding	Sponsorship source: Swiss Federal Commission for Technology and Innovation Company compliant concept
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Sequence generation	Unclear risk	Simple randomisation used to assign the wards to IG and CG.
Allocation concealment	Unclear risk	Not reported, but seemingly recruitment of residents before randomisation.
Blinding of participants and personnel All outcomes	Unclear risk	Obviously not blinded, but unclear relevance.
Blinding of participants and personnel Subjective sleep quality (carer ratings)	Unclear risk	Unknown.
Blinding of participants and personnel Objective sleep measures	Unclear risk	Unknown.
Blinding of outcome assessors Objective outcome measures	High risk	Staff assessed primary outcome measure.
Blinding of outcome assessors Subjective sleep quality (carer ratings)	Unclear risk	No information available.
Incomplete outcome data All outcomes	Low risk	2/24 participants (IG) and 5/27 participants (CG) lost to follow‐up mostly due to death which seems expectable in this population. For 'sleep quality', results were only available for only 15/22 residents in the IG (no reason given).
Selective outcome reporting	High risk	The study registration listed the Swiss version of neuropsychiatric inventory for nursing home as primary outcome, which was not mentioned in the study.
Other sources of bias	High risk	Contamination possible as wards in the same nursing homes belonged to both IG and CG.