Rubel 2010.

Methods	Randomized to pretest + decision aid + post‐test vs decision aid + post‐test vs pretest + posttest vs posttest
Participants	50 + 50 + 50 + 50 men considering prostate cancer screening in the USA
Interventions	DA: booklet on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probabilities, others' opinions + pretest and post‐test Comparator : booklet on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probabilities, others' opinions + post‐test Comparator: pretest + post‐test Comparator: post‐test
Outcomes	Knowledge (pre, post‐DA), decisional anxiety (post‐DA), decisional conflict (post‐DA), participation in decision making (pre, post‐DA), schema for PSA testing (pre, post‐DA), perception of quality and interpretation of recommendation (post‐DA)
Notes	Primary outcome was not specified
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Electronically generated random number sequence (p 309, Study design section)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	They were given sealed, sequentially numbered packets (p 309, Study design section)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No mention of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Unclear blinding, but the outcomes were objectively measured and not subject to interpretation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing outcome data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Protocol followed CONSORT checklist (p 310, Study design section)
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free of other potential biases