Critical appraisal:Cole BF, Logan RF, Halabi S, Benamouzig R, Sandler RS, Grainge MJ, et al 2009

From Cancer Guidelines Wiki

Risk of bias assessment: systematic review

Studies included in the review
Was an adequate search strategy used?
Very thorough – included appropriate search terms and databases
Were the inclusion criteria appropriate and applied in an unbiased way?
Yes – pre-specified inclusion criteria applied independently by two people
Were the studies assessed for quality (relating to the minimisation of biases)?
No – quality assessment either not undertaken, inappropriate or not described
Were the characteristics and results of individual studies appropriately summarised?
Adequate – more information would be desirable
The following questions are only relevant for systematic reviews that pooled data
Were the methods used for pooling the data appropriate?
If there was heterogeneity, were sources of heterogeneity explored?
Overall risk of bias
Low risk of bias Additional comments: Please replace this text and include any additional comments in regards to your risk of bias rating

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

Cole BF, Logan RF, Halabi S, Benamouzig R, Sandler RS, Grainge MJ, et al. Aspirin for the chemoprevention of colorectal adenomas: meta-analysis of the randomized trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009 Feb 18;101(4):256-66 Available from:
Assigned to
Topic area
Guidelines:Colorectal cancer
Clinical question
Form:Quality appraisal sr

Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment