Critical appraisal:Dummer R, Schadendorf D, Ascierto PA, Arance A, Dutriaux C, Di Giacomo AM, et al 2017 2

From Cancer Guidelines Wiki

Risk of bias assessment: randomised controlled trial

Was the trial double-blinded?
Outcomes not blinded, substantial side-effects, or not reported.
Was the treatment allocation schedule concealed?
Adequately concealed (e.g. central randomisation, numbered or coded bottles, drugs prepared by pharmacy).
Were all randomised participants included in the analysis?
No exclusions or survival analysis used with all subjects included (>95% follow-up for all groups).
The field below is not considered when calculating the risk of bias rating
How was the allocation schedule generated?
Adequate (e.g. random number table, computer random generator, coin tossing, card shuffling)
Overall risk of bias
High risk of bias Additional comments: not blinded, treatment allocation described, intention to treat population


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


Article
Dummer R, Schadendorf D, Ascierto PA, Arance A, Dutriaux C, Di Giacomo AM, et al. Binimetinib versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma (NEMO): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017 Apr;18(4):435-445 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28284557.
Assigned to
User:Cecilia.taing
Topic area
Guidelines:Melanoma
Clinical question
Form
Form:Quality appraisal rct


Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment