Critical appraisal:Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Tammela T, Määttänen L, Auvinen A, et al 2012 2

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?

Inadequately concealed (e.g. numbered/sealed envelopes, alternation, medical record number, date of birth).

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

How was the allocation schedule generated?

Adequate (e.g. random number table, computer random generator, coin tossing, card shuffling)

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

Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Tammela T, Määttänen L, Auvinen A, et al. Screening for prostate cancer decreases the risk of developing metastatic disease: findings from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Eur Urol 2012 Nov;62(5):745-52 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22704366.

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