Inoue 2006.
Methods | Mulitcenter (12 centres in Gunma and Saitama, Japan) prospective non‐blinded randomised. September 2000 to March 2005. |
|
Participants | 588 children referred to the medical institutions. 410 found to be ineligible (389 because parents decided against participation, 17 because of a previous diagnosis of KD, and 4 because a coronary artery abnormality was present before randomisation) 178 participants who were all diagnosed with KD (had at least 5 of the following: fever (> 38 °C), non‐exudative conjunctival injection, changes in the oropharynx (including mucosal erythema; dry, cracked lips; and "strawberry tongue"), changes in the extremities (including palmar and plantar erythema), oedema of the hands and feet or periungual desquamination, rash and cervical lymphadenopathy Groups well balanced in respect of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, alongside risk score. All participants followed up for at least 2 months (range 2 to 50 months). Control: 88 Steroid: 90 |
|
Interventions |
Control:
Treatment:
Excluding 1 participant whose steroid treatment was discontinued at the discretion of the treating physician, duration of steroid treatment 18 to 100 days (median 23 days). Total dose of prednisolone ranged from 23.5 to 90 mg/kg (median 32 mg/kg) |
|
Outcomes |
Primary:
Secondary:
|
|
Notes | Study terminated on 31 March 2005 by data monitoring committee at the time of the deadline despite a lower enrolment rate than expected Unclear source of funding |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: "centre randomly assigned the patient" Comment: no clear statement of mechanism for random assignment |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "Centrally maintained table of random numbers" Comment: likely adequate |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Non‐blinded Comment: unclear how this would have influenced results |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Echocardioraphy operators were non‐blinded Quote: "findings reviewed in a non blinded manner" Unclear if laboratory team processing blood samples were blinded Comment: unclear how this would have influenced results |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Key outcome variables are reported as per protocol analysis with intention‐to‐treat analysis variable performed |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Published methodology consistent with that reported in published results |
Other bias | Low risk | None identified |