| Methods | RCT, placebo‐controlled, double blind Date of study: not stated Location: 28 centres in Japan |
|
| Participants |
Randomised: 54 participants (mean age 46 years, 36 male) Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Dropouts and withdrawals
|
|
| Interventions |
Intervention A. Infliximab (n = 35), IV, 5 mg/kg, weeks 0, 2, 6; 10 weeks Control intervention B. Placebo (n = 19), IV, weeks 0, 2, 6; 10 weeks |
|
| Outcomes | Assessments at 10 weeks Primary outcomes of the trial
Secondary outcomes of the trial
|
|
| Notes | Funding: not stated Declarations of interest: not stated |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote (p 41): "Eligible patients were randomised in a 2:1 ratio to either... using the dynamic allocation method" Comment: no description of the methods used to guarantee the random sequence generation |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote (p41): "Eligible patients were randomised in a 2:1 ratio to either... using the dynamic allocation method" Comment: no description of the methods used to guarantee allocation concealment |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote (p41): "The induction phase of th treatment was .. double‐blind placebo controlled trial... Infliximab or placebo was administered by IV drip infusion over a period of at least 2h ... Comment: probably done |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote (p41): "The induction phase of th treatment was .. double‐blind placebo controlled trial... Infliximab or placebo was administered by intravenous drip infusion over a period of at least 2h ... Comment: probably done |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Randomly assigned 54, analysed 54 Quote (p42): "This primary endpoint analysis was performed on an "intent‐to‐treat" basis...Patients who discontinued the study treatment ... were handled as "not improved" in the assessment" Comment: probably done |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: no protocol was available. The pre‐specified outcomes mentioned in the methods section appeared to have been reported. |