Critical appraisal:Kjellman A, Akre O, Norming U, Törnblom M, Gustafsson O 2009
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?
- No concealment or unclear (e.g. no approach described, open randomisation lists, person doing recruitment tossing a coin).
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
|High risk of bias||Additional comments: Please replace this text and include any additional comments in regards to your quality rating|
- Kjellman A, Akre O, Norming U, Törnblom M, Gustafsson O. 15-year followup of a population based prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 2009 Apr;181(4):1615-21; discussion 1621 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19233435.
- Assigned to
- Topic area
- Guidelines:PSA Testing/PSA protocols
- Clinical question
Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer