Risk of bias for analysis 1.1 Treatment adherence.

Study

Bias

Randomisation process

Deviations from intended interventions

Missing outcome data

Measurement of the outcome

Selection of the reported results

Overall

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Subgroup 1.1.1 Up to 3 months

McCormack 2011

Low risk of bias

Randomisation was done via computer generation. Generation of randomisation and allocation was carried out by an independent researcher not involved in the research.  Allocation was concealed via opaque envelopes. Baseline characteristics were described as being similar in the two groups

Low risk of bias

the participants would be aware of which arm they had been assigned to because of the nature of the intervention. The intervention was delivered by a research physiotherapist who was aware of allocation as the training needed was different for the two arms.  All participants completed the study and data were analysed on an intention to treat basis. An Intention To Treat analysis was carried out. The researcher carrying out the analysis was blind to the treatment allocation.

Low risk of bias

No missing data for this outcome

Low risk of bias

Data was captured electronically by the I‐Neb device and downloaded. Percentage adherence was calculated as number of treatments taken/number of prescribed treatments.

Low risk of bias

There was a good description of the analysis used in the manuscript methods section

Low risk of bias

All domains were deemed to be at low risk of bias.