Evans 2010.

Methods	Randomized to online decision aid vs paper decision aid vs questionnaire vs usual care
Participants	129 + 126 + 127 + 132 men considering PSA screening in Wales
Interventions	DA: online programme on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probabilities, explicit values clarification, others' opinion, guidance (interactive computer programme; summary) Comparator: paper version of online DA on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probabilities, explicit values clarification, others' opinion, guidance (interactive computer programme; summary) Comparator: received a questionnaire Comparator: received nothing
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: knowledge (post‐DA) Secondary outcomes: attitude (post‐DA), intention to undergo PSA testing (post‐DA), anxiety (post‐DA), uptake of PSA test (post‐DA), total decisional conflict
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"[A] random sample of 100 men was selected from the list." "The process ensured individual level randomization" (p 4, Recruitment process)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"[A]ffirmative consent forms from each practice were transferred to the research officer who allocated each participant with a number provided remotely by the trial statistician to ensure concealment" (p 4, Recruitment process)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	The study does not address this outcome
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Unclear blinding but outcomes were objectively measured and not subjective to interpretation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	See flow diagram indicating high attrition consistently across groups
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Registered as a trial
Other bias	Low risk	The study appears free of other sources of bias