Critical appraisal:Roobol MJ, Kranse R, Bangma CH, van Leenders AG, Blijenberg BG, van Schaik RH, et al 2013

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)

or
single-blinded (eg outcomes assessed blind, objective outcomes, no revealing side-effects).

Was the treatment allocation schedule concealed?
Adequately concealed (e.g. central randomisation, numbered or coded bottles, drugs prepared by pharmacy).
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?
Adequate (e.g. random number table, computer random generator, coin tossing, card shuffling)
Overall risk of bias
Moderate risk of bias Additional comments: Please replace this text and include any additional comments in regards to your quality rating


Jutta's tick icon.png This appraisal has been completed.


Article
Roobol MJ, Kranse R, Bangma CH, van Leenders AG, Blijenberg BG, van Schaik RH, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: results of the rotterdam section of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2013 Oct;64(4):530-9 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23759326.
Assigned to
User:Tracy.tsang
Topic area
Guidelines:PSA Testing/PSA protocols
Clinical question
Form
Form:Quality appraisal rct


Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment