Critical appraisal:Kjellman A, Akre O, Norming U, Törnblom M, Gustafsson O 2009 2

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)

or
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

How was the allocation schedule generated?

Inadequate or not reported

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

This appraisal has been completed.

Article

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

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 rct

Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment