26.01.2016 Views

Diagnosis and Management of Infantile Hemangioma

Xxbjh

Xxbjh

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Infantile</strong> <strong>Hemangioma</strong> CER: Risk <strong>of</strong> Bias for RCTs Form<br />

Reviewer Initials: _____ Ref ID: __________<br />

Risk <strong>of</strong><br />

Bias<br />

Selection<br />

bias<br />

Performa<br />

nce bias<br />

Attrition<br />

bias<br />

Detection<br />

bias<br />

Criterion Yes No Unclear COMMENTS<br />

Was the allocation sequence generated adequately (e.g., r<strong>and</strong>om number table,<br />

computer-generated r<strong>and</strong>omization)?<br />

Was the allocation <strong>of</strong> treatment adequately concealed (e.g., pharmacycontrolled<br />

r<strong>and</strong>omization or use <strong>of</strong> sequentially numbered sealed envelopes)?<br />

Were participants analyzed within the groups they were originally assigned to?<br />

Does the design or analysis control account for important confounding <strong>and</strong><br />

modifying variables through matching, stratification, multivariable analysis, or<br />

other approaches?<br />

Did researchers rule out any impact from a concurrent intervention or an<br />

unintended exposure that might bias results?<br />

Did the study maintain fidelity to the intervention protocol?<br />

If attrition (overall or differential nonresponse, dropout, loss to follow-up, or<br />

exclusion <strong>of</strong> participants) was a concern, were missing data h<strong>and</strong>led<br />

appropriately (e.g., intention-to-treat analysis <strong>and</strong> imputation)?<br />

Was the length <strong>of</strong> follow-up different between the groups?<br />

Were the outcome assessors blinded to the intervention or exposure status <strong>of</strong><br />

participants?<br />

Reporting<br />

bias<br />

Other<br />

Were interventions/exposures assessed/defined using clearly defined measures,<br />

implemented consistently across all study participants?<br />

Were outcomes assessed using clearly defined measures, implemented<br />

consistently across all study participants?<br />

Were the potential outcomes prespecified by the researchers?<br />

Are all prespecified outcomes reported?<br />

List outcomes <strong>of</strong> interest assessed:<br />

______________________________________________________________<br />

Would answers to any <strong>of</strong> these questions vary by the specific outcome<br />

assessed? If yes, please explain in Comments box.<br />

OUTCOMES OF INTEREST FOR REVIEW<br />

Imaging: Ability to identify presence, number, <strong>and</strong> extent <strong>of</strong> hemangiomas <strong>and</strong> associated structural anomalies (sensitivity <strong>and</strong> specificity)<br />

Treatment: Size / volume <strong>of</strong> hemangioma; Impact on vision; Aesthetic appearance as assessed by clinician or parent; Degree <strong>of</strong> ulceration; Quality <strong>of</strong> life<br />

B-7

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!