Critical appraisal:Taylor KL, Williams RM, Davis K, Luta G, Penek S, Barry S, et al 2013 2

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: participants and study staff most probably not blinded, but unable to predict allocation; "intention-to-treat analyses" but no methods for imputation of missing data described, follow-up at T2 (after 13 months) <80% in Web group, differences between groups >5%; random sequence generation by computer;


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


Critical Appraisal

Article being appraised

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: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23896732.


Applicable clinical question

Key Facts

Study Design

randomised controlled trial

Number of Patients:

Not applicable



Evidence ratings

Risk of bias
High risk of bias Comments: Please replace this text and include any additional comments in regards to your quality rating

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)
Result of appraisal




Completed by

Cindy Peng



Article
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: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23896732.
Assigned to
User:Dana.stefanovic
Topic area
Guidelines:PSA Testing/Psychosocial
Clinical question
Form
Form:Quality appraisal rct


Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment