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
Same method of measurement used across comparison groups
- Yes
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. |
This appraisal has been completed.
- Article
- 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: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19224519.
- Assigned to
- User:Melissa.chow
- Topic area
- Guidelines:Colorectal cancer
- Clinical question
Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer