Murray 2001b.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid vs usual care
Participants	102 + 102 women considering hormone replacement therapy in the UK
Interventions	DA: Health Dialog interactive videodisc on options outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probability, other's opinion Comparator: usual care
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: preferred option Secondary outcomes: help with making a decision, decisional conflict, role in decision making anxiety, menopausal symptoms, costs, utility, general health status
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"[R]andomisation schedule, stratified according to recruitment centre, was generated by computer" (p 3 Methods, Randomization)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Allocations were sealed in opaque numbered envelopes, opened by the study nurse after collection of the baseline data" (p 3 Methods, Randomization)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unclear blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Unclear blinding but outcomes were objectively measured and not subjective to to interpretation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	See page 3 figure for Progress of patients through trial
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol is not mentioned
Other bias	Low risk	Similar baseline characteristics, appears to be free of other potential biases. Educational achievement was higher in control group. Quote "Subsequent analysis showed that educational level not related to use of HRT nor was there an interaction between educational attainment and the intervention"