[Summary text]
Data obtained from: NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Alcohol-use disorders: diagnosis, assessment and management of harmful drinking and alcohol dependence (CG115). NICE 2011.
Data obtained from: NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Alcohol-use disorders: diagnosis, assessment and management of harmful drinking and alcohol dependence (CG115). NICE 2011.
Data obtained from: NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Alcohol-use disorders: diagnosis, assessment and management of harmful drinking and alcohol dependence (CG115). NICE 2011.
Data obtained from: NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Alcohol-use disorders: diagnosis, assessment and management of harmful drinking and alcohol dependence (CG115). NICE 2011.
Data obtained from: NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Alcohol-use disorders: diagnosis, assessment and management of harmful drinking and alcohol dependence (CG115). NICE 2011.
Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate generation of a randomised sequence
Quote:
clients were asked to consent to be randomly assigned to a program for which they were eligible. This random assignment avoided tbe methodological difficulties of ecological selection (clients in different areas cboose among different kinds of programs) or self-selection (different kinds of clients choose different kinds of programs). Because all applicants to the Campus came from tbe same pool of applicants, the potential explanations of retention effects as due to population differences were avoided. And because clients were assigned to treatment programs randomly, there could be no self-selection bias.*
research tec who did the randomization
No comments
Block randomization
Not described
Selection bias (biased allocation to interventions) due to inadequate concealment of allocations prior to assignment
Quote:
clients were asked to consent to be randomly assigned to a program for which they were eligible. This random assignment avoided tbe methodological difficulties of ecological selection (clients in different areas cboose among different kinds of programs) or self-selection (different kinds of clients choose different kinds of programs). Because all applicants to the Campus came from tbe same pool of applicants, the potential explanations of retention effects as due to population differences were avoided. And because clients were assigned to treatment programs randomly, there could be no self-selection bias.*
No described
Judgement coment:
Randomizatio not described
allocation known for one out of three cohorts
the research assistant were blinded to allocation
Performance bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by participants and personnel during the study
Judgement comment:
Not possible to blind participants og personnel
not possible
Judgement comment:
Not possibles to blind participants nor personnel
blinding not possible
not possible
Detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated interventions by outcome assessors
Judgement comment:
Not possible to blind participants og personnel
Not described
Judgement comment:
Not possible to blind outcome assessors
Not described
not described
Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data
Judgement comment:
low drop-out. No info about number patients randomized
low drop out
Judgment comment:
low rate of drop out
low dropout rate
few dropouts
Reporting bias due to selective outcome reporting
Judgement comment:
No signs of selective reporting
unlikely
Judgement comment:
No indication of selective reporting
No reason to think so
no protocol but detailed reporting
Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere in the table
Judgement comment:
No other sources of bias
No other bias
Judgement comment:
Conflicts of interest not stated
No
No other bias