Evidence Table 8Update 5: Quality assessment of trials

AuthorYearRandomization method adequate?Allocation concealment method adequate?Groups similar at baseline?Inclusion criteria specified?Exclusion criteria specified?Outcome assessors masked?Care provider masked?Patients masked?Attrition reported?Withdrawal rate differential or high?Loss to follow-up differential or high?ITT analysis?Post- randomization exclusions?Rating
Hale2007Method not describedMethod not describedYesYesYesUnclear, reported as double blindUnclear, reported as double blindUnclear, reported as double blindYesYesNoYesYesFAIR
Katz2007YesMethod not describedYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesUnable to determineFAIR
Kivitz2006YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesUnable to determineGOOD
Langford2006YesYesYesYesYesUnclear, reported as double blindYesYesYesYesNoUnable to determineUnable to determine
Discrepancy between number randomized and number in each randomization group
FAIR
Markenson2005YesYesYesYesYesUnclear, reported as double blindYesYesYesYesNoYesYesFAIR
Matsumoto2005YesMethod not describedYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesNoYesYesFAIR
Nicholson2006YesMethod not describedYes
Females 61% vs. 40%, p<0.05
YesYesNoNoNoYesYesYes (6%)NoYesFAIR
Rauck (ACTION Trial)2006, 2007Method not describedYesNoYesYesNoNoNoYesYesUnable to determineNoUnable to determinePOOR
Zautra2005Method not describedMethod not describedYesYesYesUnclear, reported as double blindYesYesYesYesNoYesNoFAIR

From: Evidence Tables

Cover of Drug Class Review: Long-Acting Opioid Analgesics
Drug Class Review: Long-Acting Opioid Analgesics: Final Update 6 Report [Internet].
Carson S, Thakurta S, Low A, et al.
Portland (OR): Oregon Health & Science University; 2011 Jul.
Copyright © 2011 by Oregon Health & Science University.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.