Chabrera 2015.

Methods	Randomized to DA vs usual care
Participants	73 + 74 men recently diagnosed with prostate cancer considering treatment options
Interventions	DA: 2‐part decision support booklet with clinical problem, options' outcomes, outcome probabilities, patient stories, explicit values clarification, and guidance Comparator: usual care
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: knowledge, decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision‐making process Secondary outcome: coping Outcomes assessed at 3 months postintervention
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"[S]tudy participants were randomized into 1 of 2 arms using a computer‐generated random list with unequal blocks" (p E44)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information provided to make judgment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information provided to make judgment
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information provided to make judgment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Balanced attrition in both groups
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol provided; trial not registered
Other bias	Unclear risk	Prostate cancer in Catalonia is common; however, only 147 were recruited for this trial (p E44)