Skip to main content

Table 4 Risk of bias

From: Early versus deferred androgen suppression therapy for patients with lymph node-positive prostate cancer after local therapy with curative intent: a systematic review

 

RTOG-85-31[9, 10]

Granfors et al.[11, 12]

EST-3886[13–15]

EPC program[16, 17]

random sequence generation

random number generator

not described

random number generator

random number generator

allocation concealment

central allocation

not described

central allocation

central allocation

blinding of participants/personnel

no

no

no (only pathologists were blinded)

double-blinded (placebo-controlled)

blinding of outcome assessment

unclear

unclear

unclear

unclear

incomplete outcome data

low risk (a)

low risk (a)

low risk (a)

low risk (a)

selective reporting

low risk (b)

high risk (c)

low risk (b)

low risk (b, d)

note/other bias

randomization of 977 patients but only 173 (18%) presented with lymph node-positive disease.

staging was retrospectively regraded to ensure comparable groups; initially planned for 400 patients but stopped after inclusion of 91 of which only 39 patients (43%) presented with lymph node-positive disease.

staging was retrospectively regraded to ensure comparable groups; initially planned for 220 lymph node-positive patients but stopped after inclusion of 100 of which only 98 were randomized

randomization of 8113 patients but only 150 (2%) presented lymph node-positive disease (radical prostatectomy: 74 patients, radiotherapy: 14 patients, watchful waiting: 62 patients).

  1. (a). We found no evidence for missing outcome data for patients with node-positive prostate cancer. Additionally, survival/progression outcome data were presented by intention-to-treat.
  2. (b). The study protocol is not available but we suggest that the published reports include all expected outcomes.
  3. (c). One or more outcomes of interest are reported incompletely so that they cannot be entered in a meta-analysis.
  4. (d). Authors reported data for adverse events in the subgroup of patients with node-positive prostate cancer inconsistently. However, adverse events were reported sufficiently for all patients included in the study in other reports, which were not eligible for this review.