Kasper 2008.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid vs usual care
Participants	150 + 147 multiple sclerosis patients considering immunotherapy in Germany
Interventions	DA: booklet and worksheet on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probabilities, explicit values clarification (based on IPDAS) Comparator: information material on immunotherapy (80 pages)
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: role in decision making Secondary outcomes: choice, feeling undecided, helpfulness with making a decision, attitudes toward immunotherapy, expectations of side effects realized at 6 months
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"[A]llocation using computer generated random numbers" (p 5)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Randomization was carried out by concealed allocation, but method of concealment was not described (p 2, Assignment)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Participants were not told whether the information they received was standard information or the newly developed DA (p 3, Masking)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Assessors were not told whether the information they received was standard information or the newly developed DA (p 3, Masking)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Flow of participants (p 2, Fig 1); baseline data/characteristics included
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	"The protocol of this study has been published with the trial registration at http://controlled‐trials.com/ ISRCTN25267500" (p 2)
Other bias	Unclear risk	Difference in preferred interaction style between groups at baseline (P value 0.04) (p 5)