Critical appraisal:Sur RL, Borboroglu PG, Roberts JL, Amling CL 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
How was the allocation schedule generated?
Inadequate or not reported
Overall risk of bias
High risk of bias Additional comments: CDR: No mention of blinding, AE: no blinding, complications assessed by questionnaire filled in by patients, patients verbally asked to rate pain 1d after biopsy; allocation concealment or random sequence generation ("prospectively randomized); Follow-up 92.4% for cancer detection, 83.2% for complications, not reported for pain, not able to determine if balanced between groups (only % reported, but no N)

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

Sur RL, Borboroglu PG, Roberts JL, Amling CL. A prospective randomized comparison of extensive prostate biopsy to standard biopsy with assessment of diagnostic yield, biopsy pain and morbidity. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2004;7(2):126-31 Available from:
Assigned to
Topic area
Guidelines:PSA Testing
Clinical question
Form:Quality appraisal rct

Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment