Critical appraisal:Mariappan P, Chong WL, Sundram M, Mohamed SR 2004
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?
- 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?
- Too many exclusions, differential loss in comparison groups, or not reported.
The field below is not considered when calculating the risk of bias rating
Overall risk of bias
|High risk of bias||Additional comments: no mention of any blinding (impossible to blind patients; outcomes not objective); no mention of allocation schedule concealment or random sequence generation; 100% follow-up for cancer detection, most complications, ~81.8% for pain (VAS score) with >5% difference between groups ("too many exclusions, differential loss in comparison groups"), N/A for fever|
The quality was assessed for the outcome of adverse events.
- Mariappan P, Chong WL, Sundram M, Mohamed SR. Increasing prostate biopsy cores based on volume vs the sextant biopsy: a prospective randomized controlled clinical study on cancer detection rates and morbidity. BJU Int 2004 Aug;94(3):307-10 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15291857.
- Assigned to
- Topic area
- Guidelines:PSA Testing
- Clinical question
Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer