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 |
Comments
- Article
- 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
- User:Dana.stefanovic
- Topic area
- Guidelines:PSA Testing
- Clinical question
Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer
The quality was assessed for the outcome of adverse events.