Ackman 2005.
Methods |
Method of randomisation: a block design randomisation sequence was used, in a way that each child enrolled in any centre was randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 groups. Randomisation stratified by topographic pattern of CP. Blinding: the evaluating clinician, parents, and children were blinded. The physician or site co‐ordinator was aware of the group to which the child had been randomised. Intention‐to‐treat analysis: yes Loss of follow‐up: 5 children
Unit of analysis: child |
|
Participants |
Place: 5 centres in the USA Period of study: not described Number assigned: 39 Number assessed: 34
Inclusion criteria:
Exclusion criteria:
Age:
Gender:
Motor distribution:
GMFCS:
|
|
Interventions | All children received a total of 3 treatments, at baseline and 3 and 6 months. BoNT‐A‐only group:
Placebo/cast group:
BoNT‐A/cast group:
|
|
Outcomes |
Length of follow‐up:
Primary outcomes:
Secondary outcomes:
|
|
Notes |
Comments:
Source of funding: funded by an unrestricted educational grant by Allergan Inc. Conflicts of interest: not reported, but the grant mentioned above could be considered as a possible conflict of interest. |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Comment: not described clearly, but the block sequence is likely to have been computer generated |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: not described clearly, but the study authors state that the randomisation list was provided only to the individual responsible for co‐ordinating the injection procedure |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: evaluating clinicians and parents were not aware whether children received BoNT‐A or placebo injections. The study authors state that parents of children in the BoNT‐A‐only group were instructed not to discuss the treatment with the assessing clinician. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: individuals responsible for data analysis were blinded |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: no missing outcome data |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: the study protocol was not available. The relevant outcomes seem to have been reported. |
Other bias | Unclear risk | Comment: the initial power calculations determined the need for 25 children in each group. However, even though 90 children met the inclusion criteria, the authors reported a refusal rate higher than 50%. |