Table 7Critical Appraisal for Randomized Studies Using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool12

ItemKhanna 201515D’Haens 200814Hoekman 201816 (long-term follow-up from D’Haens 2008)
Risk of bias arising from randomization processSome concernsHighN/A
Deviations from intended interventions (effect of assignment to intervention)LowLowN/A
Deviations from intended interventions (effect of adhering to intervention)Some concernsSome concernsN/A
Missing outcome dataSome concernsLowLow
Measurement of the outcomeSome concernsSome concernsLow
Selection of reported resultsSome concernsHighHigh
Overall judgementSome concernsHighN/A

From: Early Biologic Treatment versus Conventional Treatment for the Management of Crohn’s Disease: A Review of Comparative Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness

Cover of Early Biologic Treatment versus Conventional Treatment for the Management of Crohn’s Disease: A Review of Comparative Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness
Early Biologic Treatment versus Conventional Treatment for the Management of Crohn’s Disease: A Review of Comparative Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness [Internet].
Thompson W, Argáez C.
Copyright © 2019 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.

The copyright and other intellectual property rights in this document are owned by CADTH and its licensors. These rights are protected by the Canadian Copyright Act and other national and international laws and agreements. Users are permitted to make copies of this document for non-commercial purposes only, provided it is not modified when reproduced and appropriate credit is given to CADTH and its licensors.

Except where otherwise noted, this work is distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND), a copy of which is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

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