Skip to main content

Advertisement

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