Schwalm 2012.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid vs usual care
Participants	76 + 74 patients undergoing coronary angiography
Interventions	DA: booklet on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probabilities, explicit values clarification and guidance Comparator: usual care
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: decisional conflict Secondary outcomes: knowledge, risk perception, value congruent with chosen option
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computerized random number generator (p 261, Study design)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Sealed envelopes (p 261, Study design)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Patients and physicians were not blinded to the allocation (p 261, Study design)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Unclear if DCS score assessed by unblinded individuals, but outcomes were objectively measured and not subjective to interpretation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Did not seem to have incomplete data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Protocol is available
Other bias	Low risk	Appeared to be free of other biases