Critical appraisal:Tae CH, Moon CM, Kim SE, Jung SA, Eun CS, Park JJ, et al 2016 2

From Cancer Guidelines Wiki
Jutta's tick icon.png This appraisal has been completed.


Article
Tae CH, Moon CM, Kim SE, Jung SA, Eun CS, Park JJ, et al. Risk factors of nonadherence to colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy and its impact on clinical outcomes: a KASID multicenter study. J Gastroenterol 2016 Nov 9 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27830330.
Assigned to
User:Victoria.freeman
Topic area
Guidelines:Colorectal cancer/Colonoscopy surveillance/Colonoscopic surveillance after polypectomy
Clinical question
Form
Form:Quality appraisal cohort risk factors
Outcomes
Early and advanced CRC incidence, adenoma and high risk adenoma recurrence

Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment

Risk of bias assessment: cohort study (risk factors)

Bias in selection of participants into study
Selection of the exposed and non-exposed cohorts
Drawn from the same population (low risk)
Bias due to error in exposure measurement
Measurement of exposure
Objective measurements from pre-existing records or <img alt="File:Jutta's info icon.png" src="/australiawiki_test/images/d/d9/Jutta%27s_info_icon.png" width="16" height="16"> baseline (Existing at or before baseline, where baseline is the time at which a participant is recorded to have entered the cohort or, if obtained after baseline, before onset of symptoms of the outcome or any likely effect of the developing outcome on the exposure) physical or biological assessment blind to outcome status (low risk)
Bias due to error in outcome measurement
Measurement of outcome
Outcome measurement unlikely to be influenced by exposure (low risk)
Was outcome of interest absent at the time to which the exposure refers?
Yes (low risk)
Was follow-up long enough for outcome to occur as a consequence of measured exposure? (Requires prior specification of a sufficient follow-up period)
Yes (low risk)
Bias due to non-participation
Participation rate in cohort
Participation rate in exposed cohort ≤10 percentage points different from non-exposed cohort OR exposed and non-exposed are from the same cohort (low risk)
Bias due to missing data
Completeness of follow-up of cohort
Active or passive follow-up of participants with methods for ascertainment of outcome and death clearly described AND with methods for ascertainment of emigration from population-at-risk clearly described or censoring at date of last follow-up OR there is a plausible estimate of >90% follow-up (low risk)
Accuracy of dates of outcome or censoring
Dates of outcome or censoring ascertained to within one year (low risk)
Difference in follow-up between exposed and non-exposed members of cohort
Follow-up methods are the same and likely to achieve the same completeness of follow-up in exposed and non-exposed participants (low risk)
Difference in missing data for exposure between those with or without the outcome
Difference in missing data for exposure < 10 percentage points (low risk)
Bias due to confounding
Comparability of exposed and non-exposed cohorts with respect to potentially important confounding variables (Requires prior specification of potentially important confounders)
Age and other potentially important confounders measured and controlled by design or in analysis (low risk)
Analysis bias
Covariates are appropriately included in statistical analysis models
Variables measuring the same underlying concept or lying in the same causal pathway ARE included together as covariates in statistical analysis models OR insufficient information to tell (high risk)


Overall risk of bias
High risk of bias Additional comments: Please replace this text and include any additional comments in regards to your risk of bias rating


Risk of bias assessment: case control – risk factors

Bias in selection of participants into study
Selection of cases and controls
No response
Bias due to error in outcome measurement
Definition of cases (outcome)
No response
Definition of controls (Not relevant when outcome of interest is recurrence and there is expected to be a short latent interval from exposure to the hypothesised risk factor to a symptomatic recurrence)
No response
Bias due to error in exposure measurement
Measurement of exposure
No response
Temporality of exposure
No response
Was the same method used to measure exposure in cases and controls?
No response
Bias due to non-participation
Participation (response) rate for cases
No response
Participation (response) rate for controls
No response
Difference in participation rate (response rate) between cases and controls
No response
Bias due to missing data
Difference in missing data for exposure between cases and controls
No response
Bias due to confounding
Comparability of cases and controls with respect to potentially important confounding variables (Requires prior specification of potentially important confounders)
No response
Analysis bias
Analysis appropriate to design
No response
Covariates are appropriately included in statistical analysis models
No response



Retrieved from "https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australiawiki/index.php?title=Critical_appraisal:Tae_CH,_Moon_CM,_Kim_SE,_Jung_SA,_Eun_CS,_Park_JJ,_et_al_2016_2&oldid=163839"