Walsh 2009.
Methods |
|
|
Participants |
|
|
Interventions | Treatment group
Control group
Co‐interventions
|
|
Outcomes |
|
|
Notes |
|
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "Statistical Analysis System (SAS Institute, Cary, NC)–based randomization macro; randomization was stratified for sex and baseline PTH level" |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "Four‐digit randomization numbers were allocated to patients through a telephone randomization process" |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Unblinded comparing intravenous therapy with no treatment control |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Observers blinded to treatment allocation assessed radiographs individually then conferred with 2nd observed |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | 125 randomly assigned to treatment; 32 randomised participants were excluded (19 in treatment group and 13 in control group) |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Patient‐centred outcomes captured and reported |
Other bias | High risk | Funded by Novartis; one author employee of Novartis |