Davison 1997.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid + audio‐taped consultation vs usual care
Participants	30 + 30 men with prostate cancer considering treatment in Canada
Interventions	DA: written + audiotape consultation of options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probability, others' opinion Comparator: usual care (general information pamphlets on clinical problem)
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: role in decision making Secondary outcomes: anxiety, depression
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"The group to which subjects were assigned was predetermined by a block randomization procedure. This ensured there were an equal number of subjects in both groups for each physician." (p 5, Data collection)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not mentioned; group assignment predetermined by block randomization procedure (p 5)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No blinding; study does not report on how the results could be influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unclear blinding and whether outcomes could be affected by unblinded assessor
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No flow diagram; p 12 explains why certain men did not listen to audiotape. All men approached by study investigator agreed to participate; only 1 man refused to complete the second set of questionnaires.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol not mentioned
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free of other sources of bias; similar baseline characteristics