Green 2001.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid + counselling vs counselling alone vs usual care
Participants	29 + 14 women with a first degree relative with breast cancer interested in learning about genetic testing in the USA
Interventions	DA: CD‐ROM plus counselling on options' outcomes, clinical problem, others' opinions, guidance/coaching Comparator: counselling Comparator: usual care
Outcomes	Primary outcome: preferred options Secondary outcome: knowledge
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"[B]lock randomization schedule to one of three groups in a 2:2:1 ratio" (p 2)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	"[G]enetic counsellor blinded to randomization until just prior to the session" (p 2), unclear if participants were blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Unclear blinding but outcomes were objectively measured and not subjective to to interpretation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	"Values do not always add up to the number of participants due to missing data"; reasons not mentioned (p 4). "Participants' baseline knowledge was reflected in the control group's answers"; participants balanced in study groups
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free of other sources of bias