Montori 2011.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid vs usual care + booklet
Participants	52 + 48 women with low bone mass or osteoporosis considering taking bisphosphonates in the USA
Interventions	DA (in consultation): worksheet on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probabilities, guidance (administered by physician) Comparator: usual care + general information booklet on osteoporosis
Outcomes	Patient knowledge (post‐DA), satisfaction with knowledge transfer (post‐DA), decisional conflict (post‐DA), patient‐clinician communication (OPTION), trust with physician (during intervention), clinician's perception of decision quality (post‐DA), clinician's satisfaction with knowledge transfer (post‐DA), uptake (post‐DA), adherence (post‐DA), fidelity (post‐DA), contamination (post‐DA), risk perception
Notes	Primary outcome was not specified
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"computer generated allocation" (p 551, Randomization)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Patients randomized "in a concealed fashion (using a secure study website)" (p 551, Randomization)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No mention of participants being blinded to their allocation; only mention of data collectors and analysts blinding (p 551, Randomization)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"After randomization, data collectors and data analysts were blind to allocation" (p 551, Randomization); Outcomes were not subject to interpretation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing outcome data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	"The protocol for this trial has been reported in full" (p 550, Design)
Other bias	Unclear risk	Appears to be free of other potential biases