Bernstein 1998.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid vs usual care
Participants	65 + 53 patients with coronary artery disease considering revascularization surgery in the USA
Interventions	DA: Health Dialog video on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probability, others' opinion Comparator: usual care (no information provided)
Outcomes	Primary outcome: satisfaction with decision and decision making process Secondary outcomes: uptake of option, knowledge, satisfaction with care, general health outcomes, condition specific health outcomes
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Randomization was stratified by study site in blocks of 10" (p 3)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"[R]andomization performed by a study coordinator opening opaque, sealed envelopes at study headquarters" (p 3)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Neither subjects nor study staff were blinded to treatment assignment ‐ could lead to different satisfaction ratings based on knowing the treatment received
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Unclear blinding but outcomes were objectively measured
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Flow diagram (p 3); low attrition of eligible participants randomized and consistent between group
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided indicating trial was included in central trials registry
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free of other potential biases