Sheridan 2011.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid + tailored messages vs usual care
Participants	81 + 79 patients with moderate or high risk for CHD considering CHD prevention strategies in the USA
Interventions	DA: web‐based decision aid on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probabilities, explicit values clarification and guidance Comparator: usual care using computer programme
Outcomes	Preferred choice (post‐DA), adherence Other outcomes (Sheridan 2014): patient‐provider communication (post‐DA), patient participation (post‐DA), patients perceptions of discussions and the health care visit (post‐DA), preferred choice (baseline and post‐DA) (data from 81 +79 patients).
Notes	Primary outcome was not specified
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"Patients were randomised by study staff who accessed an online randomised schedule" (p 2). Sequence generation method not stated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"Patients were randomised by study staff who accessed an online randomised schedule" (p 2).
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Patients blinded and physicians unblinded but objective outcomes are not likely affected by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Outcomes deemed objective therefore lack of blinding did not influence assessment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	There appears to be no missing data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Protocol made available
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free of other sources of bias