Skip to main content
. 2017 Apr 12;2017(4):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5

Jibaja‐Weiss 2011.

Methods Randomized to decision aid vs usual care
Participants 51 + 49 women diagnosed with breast cancer considering surgical treatment in the USA
Interventions DA: computer programme on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probabilities, explicit values clarification, others' opinion and guidance (step‐by‐step process for making the decision)
Comparator: usual care + breast cancer treatment educational materials normally provided to patients
Outcomes Surgical treatment preference (post‐DA), breast cancer knowledge (pre, post‐DA, post‐DA and consult), satisfaction with surgical decision (post‐DA), satisfaction with decision‐making process (post‐DA), decisional conflict (pre, post‐DA, post‐DA and consult), proportion undecided
Notes Primary outcome was not specified
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk "Patients at each hospital were randomized using permuted blocks" (p 42, Methods section)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not addressed in the study
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not addressed in the study
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 Unclear risk There is no way to know if the plots include all of the participants' data since they do not specify what was the number of patients used to obtain these mean scores
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No mention of protocol
Other bias Low risk Appears to be free of other potential biases