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.