Hanson 2011.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid vs usual care
Participants	127 + 129 patients diagnosed with advanced dementia and eating problems considering long‐term feeding tube placement in the USA
Interventions	DA: booklet or audio recording on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probabilities, explicit values clarification, others' opinion, guidance (steps in decision making, worksheet, summary) Comparator: usual care
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: decisional conflict (3 months post‐DA) Secondary outcomes: surrogate knowledge, risk perceptions, frequency of communication with providers (3 months post‐DA), feeding treatment use (3, 6 and 9 months post‐DA), participation in decision making, satisfaction with the decision, decisional regret
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computerized random number generation (p 2010, Randomization)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No description of method used to conceal allocation (p 2010, Randomization)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	"Cluster randomization prevented double blinding and may have introduced bias due to site effects" (p 2014, Discussion); study authors unsure of effect on study
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"[B]ecause of cluster randomization, data collectors were not blinded to group assignment" (p 2010, Randomization); authors believe has little impact on study
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Intervention group missing data for 1 participant, reason for omission not reported (table 1) No explanation for number of participants in each group (n = 127) given numbers vary from those in 'recruitment and retention' figure (table 4)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Registered with clinicaltrials.gov, protocol on website
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free of other potential biases