Whelan 2003.

Methods	Randomized to decision aid vs usual care
Participants	82 + 93 women with node negative breast cancer considering adjuvant chemotherapy in Canada
Interventions	DA: decision board and booklet on options' outcomes, clinical problem, outcome probability, guidance/coaching Comparator: booklet on clinical problem
Outcomes	Primary outcomes: knowledge, satisfaction of participant Secondary outcomes: preferred option, anxiety, accurate risk perceptions, participation in decision making
Notes	—
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomization, which was performed at a central location (p 3)
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unable to blind participants in our trial for practical reasons, measures were taken to minimize bias in the design of the study and the assessment of outcomes
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	Unclear risk	Flow diagram not included. "[O]ne patient excluded from analysis, determined by physician not to be candidate for chemotherapy" (p 4). Baseline data/characteristics included.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear if lack of blinding contributed to potential risk of bias
Other bias	Low risk	Appears to be free of other potential biases