Hess 2012.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid vs usual care
Participants	103 + 105 patients in the the emergency department with primary symptoms of nontraumatic chest pain and were being considered of admission to the emergency department observation unit for monitoring and cardiac stress testing within 24 hours
Interventions	DA (in consultation): 1‐page printout on options' outcomes, clinical problem, and outcome probabilities Comparator: usual care
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: knowledge Secondary outcomes: risk perceptions, decisional conflict, actual choice, satisfaction with decision making process, patient‐practitioner communication
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"Patients were randomized to either usual care or shared decision making through a Web‐based, computer‐generated allocation sequence in a 1:1 concealed fashion" (p 253)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Patients were randomized to either usual care or shared decision making through a Web‐based, computer‐generated allocation sequence in a 1:1 concealed fashion" (p 253)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Personnel were blinded, but unclear if patients were blinded (p 253, Outcome measures).  However, the primary outcome is unlikely to be biased.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Investigators assessing outcomes were blinded (p 253, Outcome measures).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Some of the numbers of patients reported in the results did not match the flow chart
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Protocol is available
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free of other biases