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 |