SynthesisCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2021
Assessment of Risk of Bias in Osteosarcoma and Ewing's Sarcoma Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the effects of physical activity and antidepressive agents on depressive symptoms in older adults: a meta-analysis of existing evidence.BMC geriatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in Chinese patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Trial
- B7-H3 in Pediatric Tumors: Far beyond Neuroblastoma.Cancers · 2023Review
- Scoping Review of Published Oncology Meta-analyses in High-Impact Oncology Journals.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs: systematic review.BMJ medicine · 2023Article
- Clinicopathological correlations and prognostic insights in osteosarcoma: a retrospective analysis.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to systematically assess the risk of bias in osteosarcoma and Ewing's sarcoma (ES) randomized controlled trials (RCT) and to examine the relationships between bias and conflict of interest/industry sponsorship.
methodsAn OVID-MEDLINE search was performed (1976-2019). Using the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, two reviewers independently assessed the prevalence of risk of bias in different RCT design domains. The relationship between conflicts of interest and industry funding with the frequency of bias was examined.
results73 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Prevalence of low-risk bias domains was 47.3%, unclear-risk domains 47.8%, and 4.9% of the domains had a high-risk of bias. Domains with the highest risk of bias were blinding of participants/personnel and outcome assessors, followed by randomization and allocation concealment. Overtime, frequency of unclear-risk of bias domains decreased (χ
conclusionThis study demonstrates that sources of potential bias are prevalent in both osteosarcoma and ES RCTs. Studies with financial conflicts of interest and industry sponsors were significantly more likely to have domains with a high-risk of bias. Improvements in reporting and adherence to proper methodology will reduce the risk of bias and improve the validity of the results of RCTs in osteosarcoma and ES.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.