Critical appraisal:Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, Dahm P 2013 2

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)?

Yes – appropriate quality issues were assessed independently by two people

Were the characteristics and results of individual studies appropriately summarised?

Yes – summary descriptive tables of subjects, interventions, outcomes etc are provided and estimates of treatment effect displayed

The following questions are only relevant for systematic reviews that pooled data

Were the methods used for pooling the data appropriate?

Yes

If there was heterogeneity, were sources of heterogeneity explored?

Yes

Overall risk of bias

Low risk of bias

Additional comments: Quality assessment not relevant to Q4.1 - merely used data extracted and analysed from Quebec study

This appraisal has been completed.

Article

Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, Dahm P. Screening for prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013 Jan 31;1:CD004720 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23440794.

Assigned to

User:Suzanne.hughes

Topic area

Guidelines:PSA Testing/PSA protocols

Clinical question

• For asymptomatic men without a prostate cancer diagnosis, what PSA testing strategies with or without DRE compared to no PSA testing or other PSA testing strategies reduce prostate cancer specific mortality or the incidence of metastases at diagnosis?

Form

Form:Quality appraisal sr

Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment