Watson 2006.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid vs usual care
Participants	475 + 522 men considering prostate cancer screening in the UK
Interventions	DA: leaflet on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probability Comparator: usual care
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: knowledge, screening intention, attitudes Secondary outcomes: preferred role in decision making
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"[R]andom numbers generated centrally by Stata v8.2" (p 3)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"[R]andom numbers generated centrally by Stata v8.2" (p 3)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Unclear blinding but outcomes were objectively measured and not subjective to interpretation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Flow diagram (p 2); reason for exclusion from analysis mentioned. Sample characteristics of risk included
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Other bias	Unclear risk	"Adjustment for multiple testing was not accounted for and hence a degree of caution with interpretation is required, particularly in relation to findings with a P‐value close to 0.05" (p 3)