Critical appraisal:Taylor KL, Williams RM, Davis K, Luta G, Penek S, Barry S, et al 2013

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?
Adequate (e.g. random number table, computer random generator, coin tossing, card shuffling)
Overall risk of bias
High risk of bias Additional comments: No mention of blinding and outcomes collected by interviewer

No central allocation - interviewers did the allocation Overall T1 and T2 over 80% but usual care > 5% difference between intervention arms

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

Taylor KL, Williams RM, Davis K, Luta G, Penek S, Barry S, et al. Decision Making in Prostate Cancer Screening Using Decision Aids vs Usual Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med 2013 Jul 29 Available from:
Assigned to
Topic area
Guidelines:PSA Testing/Psychosocial
Clinical question
Form:Quality appraisal rct

Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment