Critical appraisal:Blazeby JM, Fayers P, Conroy T, Sezer O, Ramage J, Rees M, et al 2009

From Cancer Guidelines Wiki

Risk of bias assessment: cohort study

Subject selection
"New technology" group
Highly selected or not described
Comparison group
Highly selected or not described
Comparability of groups on demographic characteristics and clinical features
Not comparable and not adjusted for differences
Measurement of outcomes
Outcome measures blind to technology used
No or not described
Same method of measurement used across comparison groups
Completeness of follow-up
Was follow-up complete and were all patients included in the analysis?
Reasonable follow-up of all groups (>80%)
Overall risk of bias
High risk of bias Additional comments: New technology group - “Some 356 patients completed” – no mention of the number asked.

Comparison group - do not know

Comparability of groups - Differences in severity/stage of disease, country (i.e. UK – more resections, France – more palliative) but we have no idea about selection criteria/why France and Germany have much fewer patients.

Jutta's tick icon.png This appraisal has been completed.

Blazeby JM, Fayers P, Conroy T, Sezer O, Ramage J, Rees M, et al. Validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-LMC21 questionnaire for assessment of patient-reported outcomes during treatment of colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg 2009 Mar;96(3):291-8 Available from:
Assigned to
Topic area
Guidelines:Colorectal cancer
Clinical question
Form:Quality appraisal cohort

Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment