Scribd
Upload
55 views

CASP RCT Checklist PDF

1. This document appears to be a study appraisal form for assessing the validity and soundness of a randomized controlled trial. 2. The form is divided into sections that evaluate aspects of the trial such as its design, methodology, results reporting, and applicability to local practice. 3. Key criteria examined include randomization, blinding, baseline similarity of study groups, equal treatment of groups, comprehensive reporting of effects, precision of estimates, and weighing of benefits versus harms.

Uploaded by

tengku ani
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
55 views

CASP RCT Checklist PDF

1. This document appears to be a study appraisal form for assessing the validity and soundness of a randomized controlled trial. 2. The form is divided into sections that evaluate aspects of the trial such as its design, methodology, results reporting, and applicability to local practice. 3. Key criteria examined include randomization, blinding, baseline similarity of study groups, equal treatment of groups, comprehensive reporting of effects, precision of estimates, and weighing of benefits versus harms.

Uploaded by

tengku ani
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Study and citation: ........................................................................................................................

Section A: Is the basic study design valid for a randomised controlled trial?

1. Did the study address a clearly Yes No Can’t tell


focused research question? □ □ □
CONSIDER:
• Was the study designed to assess the
outcomes of an intervention?
• Is the
research question ‘focused’ in terms of:
ed
• Population studi • Intervention given
• Comparator chosen
• Outcomes
measured?

2. Was the assignment of participants to Yes No Can’t tell


interventions randomised? □ □ □
CONSIDER:
• How was randomisation carried out?
the method appropriate?
Was • Was
randomisation sufficient to eliminate
systematic bias?
• Was the allocation sequence concealed
from investigators and participants?

3. Were all participants who entered the study Yes No Can’t tell
accounted for at its conclusion? □ □ □
CONSIDER:
• Were losses to follow-up and
exclusions after randomisation
accounted for?
• Were participants analysed in the
study groups to which they were
randomised
(intention-to-treat analysis)?
• Was the study stopped early? If so,
what was the reason?

Section B: Was the study methodologically sound?


. Yes No Can’t tell
4 • Were the participants ‘blind’ to
intervention they were given? □ □ □
• Were the investigators ‘blind’ to the □ □ □
intervention they were giving to
participants?
• Were the people assessing/analysing □ □ □
outcome/s ‘blinded’?

5. Were the study groups similar at the start of Yes No Can’t tell
the randomised controlled trial? □ □ □
CONSIDER:
• Were the baseline characteristics of each
study group (e.g. age, sex,
socio-economic group) clearly set out?
• Were there any differences between
the study groups that could affect the
outcome/s?

6. Apart from the experimental intervention, did Yes No Can’t tell


each study group receive the same level of care □ □ □
(that is, were they treated equally)?

CONSIDER:
• Was there a clearly defined study
protocol?
• If any additional
interventions were given (e.g. tests or
treatments), were they similar between
the study groups?
• Were the follow-up intervals the same
for each study group?

Section C: What are the results?


7. Were the effects of intervention reported Yes No Can’t tell
comprehensively? □ □ □
CONSIDER:
• Was a power calculation undertaken? •
What outcomes were measured, and were
they clearly specified?
• How were the results expressed? For
binary outcomes, were relative and
absolute effects reported?
• Were the results
reported for each
outcome in each study group at each
follow-up interval?
• Was there any missing or incomplete
data?
• Was there differential drop-out
between the study groups that could
affect the
results? e potential sources of bias
• Wer
identified?
• Which statistical tests were
used? • Were p values reported?

8. Was the precision of the estimate of the Yes No Can’t tell


intervention or treatment effect □ □ □
reported?

CONSIDER:
• Were confidence intervals (CIs) reported?

9. Do the benefits of the experimental Yes No Can’t tell


intervention outweigh the harms and costs? □ □ □
CONSIDER:
• What was the size of the intervention or
treatment effect?
• Were harms or unintended effects
reported for each study group?
• Was a cost-effectiveness analysis
undertaken? (Cost-effectiveness analysis
allows a comparison to be made between
different interventions used in the care of
the same condition or problem.)

Section D: Will the results help locally?


10. Can the results be applied to your local Yes No Can’t tell
population/in your context? □ □ □
CONSIDER:
• Are the study participants similar to
the people in your care?
• Would any differences between your
population and the study participants alter
the outcomes reported in the study?
• Are the outcomes important to your
population?
• Are there any outcomes you
would have wanted information on
that have not been
ported?
studied or re • Are there any
limitations of the study that would
affect your decision?

11. Would the experimental intervention provide Yes No Can’t tell


greater value to the people in your care than any □ □ □
of the existing interventions?

CONSIDER:
• What resources are needed to introduce
this intervention taking into account
time,
finances, and skills development or
training needs?
• Are you able to disinvest resources in
one or more existing interventions in
order to
be able to re-invest in the new
intervention?

APPRAISAL SUMMARY: Record key points from your critical appraisal in this box. What is your
conclusion about the paper? Would you use it to change your practice or to recommend
changes to care/interventions used by your organisation? Could you judiciously implement this
intervention without delay?

You might also like