Critical appraisal:Volk RJ, Jibaja-Weiss ML, Hawley ST, Kneuper S, Spann SJ, Miles BJ, et al 2008 2
From Cancer Guidelines Wiki
Risk of bias assessment: randomised controlled trial
Was the trial double-blinded?
- Trial was double-blinded but may have limitations (eg method of blinding inappropriate, tablet vs injection with no double-dummy, different treatment schedules, side-effects may unblind)
single-blinded (eg outcomes assessed blind, objective outcomes, no revealing side-effects).
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
Overall risk of bias
|High risk of bias||Additional comments:|
- Volk RJ, Jibaja-Weiss ML, Hawley ST, Kneuper S, Spann SJ, Miles BJ, et al. Entertainment education for prostate cancer screening: a randomized trial among primary care patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns 2008 Dec;73(3):482-9 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18760888.
- Assigned to
- Topic area
- Guidelines:PSA Testing/Psychosocial
- Clinical question
Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer