Critical appraisal:Roobol MJ, Kranse R, Bangma CH, van Leenders AG, Blijenberg BG, van Schaik RH, et al 2013 2
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?
- 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
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|
- 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
- Topic area
- Guidelines:PSA Testing/PSA protocols
- Clinical question
Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer