U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Duarte A, Mebrahtu T, Goncalves PS, et al. Adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab for treating plaque psoriasis in children and young people: systematic review and economic evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2017 Nov. (Health Technology Assessment, No. 21.64.)

Cover of Adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab for treating plaque psoriasis in children and young people: systematic review and economic evaluation

Adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab for treating plaque psoriasis in children and young people: systematic review and economic evaluation.

Show details

Appendix 11Ustekinumab risk-of-bias assessment for trial extension periods

ItemPeriod
Placebo crossover and active treatment (12–52 weeks)Follow-up (52–60 weeks)
JudgementJustificationJudgementJustification
Is the population based on a representative sample selected from a relevant population?YesAll participants from the initial blinded period were eligible to enter the crossover phase of the studyYesAll participants from previous phases were eligible for follow-up
Are the criteria for inclusion explicit?YesAll participants from the initial blinded period were eligible to enter the crossover phase of the studyYesAll participants from previous phases were eligible for follow-up
Were groups similar at baseline in terms of important confounding variables? If not, was the analysis adjusted to account for the imbalance?NAThis phase of the study did not aim for comparative analysisNAThis phase of the study did not aim for comparative analysis
Was knowledge of the allocated intervention by outcome assessors adequately prevented during the study?YesThe sponsor, investigative study sites and participants remained blinded to treatment assignment until the last participant enrolled had completed the studyYesThe sponsor, investigative study sites and participants remained blinded to treatment assignment until the last participant enrolled had completed the week 60 evaluations and the database was locked
Were losses to follow-up < 20%?YesOnly 7 out of 110 participants withdrew by the end of this phaseUnclearThe total loss to follow-up or withdrawals at this phase of the study were not reported
Were all patients accounted for at the end of study follow-up?YesWithdrawals and reasons (e.g. AEs, death and lack of efficacy) were reportedUnclearThe total loss to follow-up for this phase of the study was not reported
Were reliable methods used to measure outcomes?YesPASI scores were reportedNAThe follow-up was aimed only at safety reports
Was the study sufficiently powered to detect a treatment effect?NAThe follow-up period did not aim for comparative analysesNAThe follow-up period did not aim for comparative analyses
Was the study follow-up duration sufficient to detect a long-term treatment effect?YesParticipants were followed up for 40 weeksNoParticipants were followed up for only 8 weeks

NA, not applicable.

Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2017. This work was produced by Duarte et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.
Bookshelf ID: NBK464236

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (1.8M)

Other titles in this collection

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...