Skip to main content
. 2021 Mar 4;2021(3):CD013498. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013498.pub2

Risk of bias for analysis 4.8 End stage renal disease.

Study Bias
Randomisation process Deviations from intended interventions Missing outcome data Measurement of the outcome Selection of the reported results Overall
Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Davies 2014 Low risk of bias At the randomisation visit (visit 2) the participants were to be randomised to either insulin degludec or insulin detemir, both in combination with insulin aspart. The randomisation was to be carried out in a 2:1 manner using the Interactive Voice/Web Response System IV/WRS. The trial was stratified according to region with 4 levels: Europe (Italy, UK, Macedonia and Finland), Japan, India and South America (Brazil). There were no relevant baseline imbalances. Low risk of bias Open‐label trial design. The statistical evaluation of the full analysis set (FAS) was to follow the intention‐to‐treat (ITT) principle. Low risk of bias Withdrawals and reasons for withdrawal were documented, did not differ substantially between intervention groups and did not appear to be related to health status. Full Analysis Set (FAS) included all randomised participants. The statistical evaluation of the FAS was to follow the intention‐to‐treat (ITT) principle and participants were to contribute to the evaluation “as randomised”. Safety analysis set included all participants who received at least one dose of the investigational product or its comparator. Participants in the safety set were to contribute to the evaluation “as treated”. Unless otherwise specified missing values (including intermittent missing values) were imputed using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method. Missing observations were considered missing at random in all analyses. Low risk of bias Open‐label design with outcome measure unlikely influenced by lack of blinding. Low risk of bias Data from full clinical study report. Only one measurement and result provided for the time point selected by review authors. Low risk of bias No risk of bias identified.