Skip to main content

Table 2 Risk of bias in studies comparing intensive and conventional glycemic control in neurocritical care patients

From: Optimal glycemic control in neurocritical care patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author (year) Concealed allocation Description of random allocation method Double-blind ITT analysis All patients accounted for Major baseline differences Blinded outcome adjudication Jadad score
Staszewski, 2011 Unclear No No Yes Yes Mean age higher in conventional group (87 vs. 68 yrs; NS) Yes 2
Green, 2010 Adequate No No Yes 7 patients lost No Yes 2
Coester, 2010 Adequate No No No Yes More poly-trauma, normal CT scans in control patients Unclear 2
Johnston, 2009 Adequate No No Yes 1 patient lost (incarcerated) No Yes 2
Azevedo, 2009 Unclear No No Yes No Unclear Unclear 1
Meng, 2009 Adequate No No Yes 7 patients lost No Yes 2
Yang, 2009 Unclear No No Yes Yes No Unclear 2
Bilotta, 2008 Adequate Yes No Yes Yes No Yes 3
Kreisel, 2009 Adequate Yes No Yes 3 patients lost More males in intensive group No 3
Arabi, 2008 Unclear Yes No Yes Yes Unclear Not relevant 3
Bruno, 2008 Adequate No (although done by "data management center") No Yes Yes More patients with diabetes mellitus, treated with tPA in intensive group Yes 2
Oksanen, 2007 Adequate No (although done by "independent statistician" No Yes Yes More patients male in ITT groups. Lower MAP in ITT group. Not relevant 2
Azevedo, 2007 Adequate Yes No Yes No* No No 2
Bilotta, 2007 Adequate Yes No Yes Yes No Yes 3
Walters, 2006 Unclear No (although done by pharmacy using "standard algorithm") No Yes Unclear More patients with high HbA1C in treatment group Not relevant 1
Van den Berghe, 2005 Adequate No No Yes Yes More males, patients diabetes mellitus, malignancy, ICH, SAH in intensive group Yes 2
  1. Although authors stated they used intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, description of patient flow suggests otherwise. Eight patients did not receive their allocated treatment; their results were not presented or analyzed (largely because unable to obtain consent after randomization); 20 patients randomized to conventional group; 6 died; functional outcome information only described for 12 (rather than 14); *numbers in Table 3 of manuscript do not account for all patients. NS, not significant; CT, computer tomography; ICH, intracerebral hemorrhage; MAP, mean arterial pressure; SAH, subarachnoid hemorrhage; tPA, tissue plasminogen activator.