Cheng 2005.
Methods | Design: parallel RCT Randomisation method: not reported Blinding: no Power calculation: no Dropouts/withdrawals: no |
|
Participants | People with advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (stage III and IV), Karnofsky > 60 Number (treatment/control): 84 (42/42) Mean age (range): 45.9 (21‐78) Gender (M/F): 45/39 Country: Guangdong province, China Setting: hospital |
|
Interventions | Indirect moxa cone on salt vs conventional medicine Treatment group
Control group
|
|
Outcomes | WBC count at the end of treatment | |
Notes | — | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not described |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No relevant description |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | There was no loss to follow‐up. All participants were included in the analysis. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Limited outcome measures were reported. |
Other bias | Unclear risk | There were no baseline characteristics data presented and no statement of group similarity. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | No blinding |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes | Unclear risk | No subjective outcome was reported. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes | Low risk | No blinding However, the objective outcomes detected by machine were generally not influenced substantially. |