Ozanne 2007.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid + standard counselling vs usual care (standard counselling)
Participants	15 + 15 women considering breast cancer prevention in the USA
Interventions	DA (in consultation): interactive computer decision aid on options outcomes, outcome probability Comparator: standard counselling
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: consultation length Secondary outcomes: knowledge, decisional conflict, satisfaction with the decision, acceptability of the decision aid, physician satisfaction with the consultation
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Patients were randomized evenly between groups; no information provided about generation (p 149)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided (p 149)
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	Demographic data included; reasons for attrition mentioned
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No reference to study protocol
Other bias	Unclear risk	Small sample size, does not say how many physicians participated in study, mentions that there were observed changes in physician behaviour (based on doing both intervention and control)