Skip to main content
. 2017 Jun 6;2017(6):CD012143. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012143.pub2
Methods For characteristics see Silva 2013a1
Participants
Interventions
Outcomes
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk computer‐generated random code provided by the sponsor (Schering‐Plough Research Institute)
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes Low risk The study was described as double‐blinded, (Active drug and matched placebo cap‐sules were used to maintain third‐party blind dispensing)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk The study was described as double‐blinded but it was unclear how the blinding was maintained and who performed the outcome assessment.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk Only 1 participant dropped out due to AE
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Protocol not found
Vested‐interest bias High risk This study was supported by Merck & Co. Inc.
Other bias Low risk The trial appeared to be free of other components that could put it at risk of bias