Skip to main content

Table 5 Risk of bias assessment summary table

From: An appraisal of analytical tools used in predicting clinical outcomes following radiation therapy treatment of men with prostate cancer: a systematic review

Study Id

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Cooperberg [39]

high

low

low

low

Bittner [27]

high

low

high

low

Buyyounouski [38]

low

low

low

low

Cooperberg (41)

low

high

low

low

Delouya [19]

low

high

low

low

Engineer [9]

low

high

low

low

Feng [28]

low

low

low

low

Frank [25]

unclear

high

low

low

Frank [45]

unclear

low

unclear

low

Halverson [46]

low

low

low

low

Huang [47]

low

low

low

low

Kaplan [12]

unclear

high

low

low

Krishnan [20]

low

high

low

low

Kubicek [48]

low

low

low

high

Marshall [11]

unclear

low

low

low

Potters [16]

unclear

high

low

low

Rodrigues [14]

high

unclear

low

low

Proust-Lima [51]

low

low

unclear

low

Sabolch [53]

low

low

low

low

Sanpaolo [21]

low

low

low

low

Slater [54]

high

low

low

low

Spratt [55]

low

low

low

low

Steigler [56]

low

low

low

unclear

Taylor [58]

low

low

unclear

low

Vainshtein [18]

low

low

low

low

Vance [60]

low

low

low

low

Wattson [61]

low

high

low

low

Westphalen [62]

unclear

high

low

low

Williams [17]

low

high

low

low

Yoshida [15]

unclear

low

unclear

low

Zaorsky [65]

low

low

low

low

Zelefsky [10]

low

high

low

low

Zelefsky [68]

low

low

low

low

Zelefsky [66]

low

low

low

low

Zumsteg [69]

low

low

low

low

D’Amico [43]

low

high

low

low

Yu [64]

low

low

low

low

D’Ambrosio [41]

unclear

low

low

low

Denham [44]

low

unclear

low

low

McKenna [49]

unclear

high

low

high

Yu [63]

low

unclear

unclear

low

D’Amico [42]

low

low

low

low

Zelefsky [67]

low

low

low

low

Thames [59]

low

low

unclear

low

Qian [52]

low

low

low

low

Sylvester [57]

low

low

low

high

Murgic [50]

low

high

low

low

Low/47

34 (72%)

30 (64%)

40 (85%)

43 (91%)

  1. Q1: Was the defined representative sample of patients assembled at a common (usually early) point in the course of their disease)? Q2: Was patient follow-up sufficiently long and complete? Q3: Were outcome criteria either objective or applied in a ‘blind’ fashion? Q4: If subgroups with different prognoses are identified, did adjustment for important prognostic factors take place?
  2. High = high risk of bias, low = low risk of bias, unclear = unclear if study design is at high or low risk of bias