Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

5‐Fluorouracil for keloid scars

Esta versión no es la más reciente

Appendices

Appendix 1. CENTRAL search strategy

#1 MeSH descriptor: [Cicatrix] explode all trees
#2 (keloid* or cicatrix):ti,ab,kw
#3 (hypertrophic next (scar or scars or scarred or scarring)):ti,ab,kw
#4 {or #1‐#3}
#5 MeSH descriptor: [Fluorouracil] explode all trees
#6 (Fluorouracil or FU or 5FU or 5‐FU or FFU):ti,ab,kw
#7 (Carac or Fluroplex or Efudex):ti,ab,kw
#8 {or #5‐#7}
#9 {and #4, #8} in Trials

Appendix 2. Criteria for 'Risk of bias' judgements

1. Was the allocation sequence randomly generated?

Low risk of bias

The investigators describe a random component in the sequence generation process such as: referring to a random number table; using a computer random‐number generator; coin tossing; shuffling cards or envelopes; throwing dice; drawing of lots.

High risk of bias

The investigators describe a non‐random component in the sequence‐generation process. Usually, the description would involve some systematic, non‐random approach, for example: sequence generated by odd or even date of birth; sequence generated by some rule based on date (or day) of admission; sequence generated by some rule based on hospital or clinic record number.

Unclear

Insufficient information about the sequence generation process provided to permit a judgement of low or high risk of bias.

2. Was the treatment allocation adequately concealed?

Low risk of bias

Participants and investigators enrolling participants could not foresee assignment because one of the following, or an equivalent method, was used to conceal allocation: central allocation (including telephone, web‐based and pharmacy‐controlled randomisation); sequentially‐numbered drug containers of identical appearance; sequentially‐numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes.

High risk of bias

Participants or investigators enrolling participants could possibly foresee assignments and thus introduce selection bias, such as allocation based on: use of an open random allocation schedule (e.g. a list of random numbers); assignment envelopes without appropriate safeguards (e.g. envelopes were unsealed, non‐opaque, or not sequentially numbered); alternation or rotation; date of birth; case record number; any other explicitly unconcealed procedure.

Unclear

Insufficient information provided to permit a judgement of low or high risk of bias. This is usually the case if the method of concealment is not described, or not described in sufficient detail to allow a definite judgement, for example if the use of assignment envelopes is described, but it remains unclear whether envelopes were sequentially numbered, opaque and sealed.

3. Blinding ‐ was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented during the study?

Low risk of bias

Any one of the following:

  • No blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome and the outcome measurement are not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

  • Blinding of participants and key study personnel ensured, and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken.

  • Either participants or some key study personnel were not blinded, but outcome assessment was blinded and the non‐blinding of others unlikely to introduce bias.

High risk of bias

Any one of the following:

  • No blinding or incomplete blinding, and the outcome or outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.

  • Blinding of key study participants and personnel attempted, but likely that the blinding could have been broken.

  • Either participants or some key study personnel were not blinded, and the non‐blinding of others likely to introduce bias.

Unclear

Either of the following:

  • Insufficient information to permit judgement of low or high risk of bias.

  • The study did not address this outcome.

4. Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed?

Low risk of bias

Any one of the following:

  • No missing outcome data.

  • Reasons for missing outcome data are unlikely to be related to true outcome (for survival data, censoring unlikely to be introducing bias).

  • Missing outcome data are balanced in numbers across intervention groups, with similar reasons for missing data across groups.

  • For dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with the observed event risk is not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on the intervention effect estimate.

  • For continuous outcome data, a plausible effect size (difference in means or standardised difference in means) among missing outcomes is not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on the observed effect size.

  • Missing data have been imputed using appropriate methods.

High risk of bias

Any one of the following:

  • Reasons for missing outcome data are likely to be related to the true outcome, with either an imbalance in numbers or reasons for missing data across intervention groups.

  • For dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with the observed event risk is enough to induce clinically relevant bias in the intervention effect estimate.

  • For continuous outcome data, a plausible effect size (difference in means or standardised difference in means) among missing outcomes is enough to induce a clinically relevant bias in the observed effect size.

  • 'As‐treated' analysis done with a substantial departure of the intervention received from that assigned at randomisation.

  • Potentially inappropriate application of simple imputation.

Unclear

Either of the following:

  • Insufficient reporting of attrition/exclusions to permit a judgement of low or high risk of bias (e.g. number randomised not stated, no reasons for missing data provided).

  • The study did not address this outcome.

5. Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?

Low risk of bias

Either of the following:

  • The study protocol is available and all of the study’s prespecified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest in the review have been reported in the prespecified way.

  • The study protocol is not available but it is clear that the published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were prespecified (convincing text of this nature may be uncommon).

High risk of bias

Any one of the following:

  • Not all of the study’s prespecified primary outcomes have been reported.

  • One or more primary outcomes is/are reported using measurements, analysis methods, or subsets of the data (e.g. subscales) that were not prespecified.

  • One or more reported primary outcomes was/were not prespecified (unless clear justification for their reporting is provided, such as an unexpected adverse effect).

  • One or more outcomes of interest in the review is/are reported incompletely so that they cannot be entered in a meta‐analysis.

  • The study report fails to include results for a key outcome that would be expected to have been reported for such a study.

Unclear

Insufficient information provided to permit a judgement of low or high risk of bias. It is likely that the majority of studies will fall into this category.

6. Other sources of potential bias

Low risk of bias

The study appears to be free of other sources of bias.

High risk of bias

There is at least one important risk of bias. For example, the study:

  • had a potential source of bias related to the specific study design used; or

  • has been claimed to have been fraudulent; or

  • had some other problem.

Unclear

There may be a risk of bias, but there is either:

  • insufficient information to assess whether an important risk of bias exists; or

  • insufficient rationale or evidence that an identified problem will introduce bias.