Mathieu 2007.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid versus usual care
Participants	367 + 367 women aged 70 to 71 years and considering a subsequent screening mammography in Australia
Interventions	DA: booklet on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probability, explicit values clarification, others' opinions, guidance with worksheet (Ottawa Decision Support Framework) Comparator: BreastScreen NSW brochure ‐ includes information for women 70 + but no numeric information about the outcomes of screening
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: actual decision, informed choice Secondary outcomes: knowledge (includes 5 questions about risk perceptions), anxiety, decisional conflict, breast cancer worry, preference/intension, attitudes about screening, relationship between objective and perceived risk of breast cancer
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer programme, which assigned allocations in accordance with a simple randomization schedule (p 2, Methods)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomized by interview staff who accessed a previously concealed computer programme (p 2, Methods)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unclear blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Interviewers [at follow‐up] were blinded, outcomes were objectively measured and not subjective to to interpretation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Fig 1 flow diagram (p 2)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	"The trial was registered with the Australian Clinical Trials Registry and the Clinical Trials Registration System" (p 5)
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free of other potential biases