Critical appraisal:Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, Bergdahl S, Khatami A, Lodding P, et al 2010 2
From Cancer Guidelines Wiki
Risk of bias assessment: randomised controlled trial
Was the trial double-blinded?
- Trial was double-blinded but may have limitations (eg method of blinding inappropriate, tablet vs injection with no double-dummy, different treatment schedules, side-effects may unblind)
single-blinded (eg outcomes assessed blind, objective outcomes, no revealing side-effects).
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
Overall risk of bias
|Moderate risk of bias||Additional comments: Please replace this text and include any additional comments in regards to your quality rating|
- Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, Bergdahl S, Khatami A, Lodding P, et al. Mortality results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol 2010 Aug;11(8):725-32 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20598634.
- Assigned to
- Topic area
- Guidelines:PSA Testing/PSA protocols
- Clinical question
Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer