Critical appraisal:Volk RJ, Jibaja-Weiss ML, Hawley ST, Kneuper S, Spann SJ, Miles BJ, et al 2008 2

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)

or
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

How was the allocation schedule generated?

Inadequate or not reported

Overall risk of bias

High risk of bias

Additional comments:

This appraisal has been completed.

Article

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

User:Dana.stefanovic

Topic area

Guidelines:PSA Testing/Psychosocial

Clinical question

• What methods of decision support for men about PSA testing increase men’s capacity to make an informed decision for or against testing?

Form

Form:Quality appraisal rct

Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment