Skip to main content
. 2016 Oct 11;2016(10):CD002142. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002142.pub4

Italy 2002.

Methods 1989 to 1997
RCT
Participants 104 patients
 Stage I
Trial data used in subgroup analyses for age, sex, histology and stage
Interventions Surgery + radiotherapy vs surgery alone
 RT details
 50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy/d in 5 weeks and 3 days
 Prescription technique: angled field technique machine used: linac
 Average field size (cm): unavailable
 Clinical target volume: bronchial stump, hilum, mediastinum
 Technique: unavailable
Outcomes Survival
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Quote: "by chance" using computer‐generated model
Comment: stated as randomised in paper; checks run on IPD suggest adequate sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Comment: computer‐generated randomisation, which was checked by an independent colleague
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Comment: trial not blinded owing to the nature of the intervention; outcome not likely influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Comment: individual participant data obtained and checked for all outcomes
Other bias Low risk Comment: study apparently free of other sources of bias