Montgomery 2003.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid + decision analysis vs decision analysis vs decision aid vs usual care
Participants	51 + 52 + 55 + 59 newly diagnosed hypertensive patients considering drug therapy for blood pressure in the UK
Interventions	DA: decision analysis plus information video and leaflet on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probability, explicit values clarification Comparator: decision analysis on options' outcomes, outcome probability, explicit values clarification Comparator: video and leaflet on options' outcomes, clinical problem Comparator: usual care
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: decisional conflict Secondary outcomes: uptake of option, knowledge, anxiety
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Allocation schedule was computer‐generated by an individual not involved in the study (p 2)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"[A]llocation was concealed to the author in advance by the nature of the minimization procedure" (p 2)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not blinded ‐ unclear if this would introduce bias to outcome assessed
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	Low risk	Flow diagram (p 5)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free of other potential biases