Risk of bias
In our initial search in PubMed, there was an RCT study that looked like it could be helpful for our research question: Born KA, Dooley EE, Cheshire PA, McGill LE, Cosgrove JM, Ivy JL, Bartholomew JB. Chocolate Milk versus carbohydrate supplements in adolescent athletes: a field based study. J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2019 Feb 12;16(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s12970-019-0272-0. PMID: 30755234; PMCID: PMC6373093.
In order to assess the article for risk of bias, which is essential for critically appraising the evidence, we can move through the FRISBEE criteria:
F: Follow-up (Dropouts or those lost to follow-up create missing data that disrupt the balance in groups created by randomization—this can obscure results)
R: Randomization and concealed allocation (Randomization guarantees that each subject has the same chance of entering any group.)
I: Intention-to-treat (ITT preserves the balance of prognostic factors in groups created by the original random allocation. It avoids overly optimistic estimates of treatment efficacy resulting from excluding non-compliers)
S: Similar baseline characteristics (Similar baseline characteristics help to ensure that there are similar confounding variables, which helps to keep the study outcome balanced)
B: Blinding (Blinding equalized the effect of patient and therapist expectations on outcome)
E: Equal treatment (Equal treatment helps guarantee that the groups will remain prognostically balanced by avoiding systematic differences in care that could skew the results.)
E: Equivalence to your patient/population (How applicable is this study to the population that you are studying?)
Download the PDF below to help you work through the FRISBEE criteria with our sample article.
- FRISBEE WorksheetDuke University FRISBEE Worksheet
