Schroy 2011.

Methods	Randomized to detailed vs simple decision aid vs control
Participants	223 + 212 + 231 average‐risk patients considering CRC screening in the USA
Interventions	Detailed DA: CRC risk assessment + web‐based interactive audio‐visual DA on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probabilities, others' opinion and guidance Comparator 1: web‐based decision aid only Comparator 2: usual care using pamphlet
Outcomes	Knowledge (pre and post‐DA), satisfaction with decision making process (pre and post‐DA), preferred choice (pre and post‐DA)
Notes	Primary outcome was not specified
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No mention of randomization process
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No mention of allocation concealment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Providers were not blinded, subjective outcomes such as satisfaction with decision‐making process could have been affected, unclear if participants were blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Assessors not blinded but outcome measures not believed to be influenced by it
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No data appears to be missing
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No mention of examination of selective outcome reporting or study protocol
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free of other sources of bias