Berry 2013.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid vs usual care
Participants	266 + 228 men considering prostate cancer treatment in the USA
Interventions	DA: interactive web based video on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probabilities, others' opinion, guidance (list of questions to ask doctor and automated summary) Comparator: usual care
Outcomes	Primary outcome: decisional conflict Secondary outcome: preferred/actual treatment choice (pre‐ and post‐DA), proportion undecided Other outcomes (Bosco 2012): choice concordance (6 months post‐DA). (Data from 239 + 209 men)
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Methods section‐ second paragraph, p 3: "Participants were randomized automatically by the P3P application to study groups (1:1 using a simple randomization scheme with no blocking)"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Methods section, p 3: "Participants were randomized automatically by the P3P application to study groups"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Participants were not blinded and study does not address the effect on the results
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Unclear whether outcome assessors are blinded, but outcomes are not subject to interpretation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Used intention‐to‐treat analysis and low dropout (p 4)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Protocol made available
Other bias	Unclear risk	Was a multicentre trial which could have lead to contamination, protocol violation and biased questionnaire completion