Appraisal Checklist Randomized Control Trial

Part I APA style citation of the critiqued article (type in box below) 1 Part II Abstract 2 Submit 150-200-word abstract in a separate Word document. See instructions for the f Part III Quality Criteria (If you check CD, NA, NR you need to identify which it is by indicating 3 Y N 4 Were patients randomized? Y N 5 Y N 6 Was randomization concealed? Y N 7 Y N 8 Y N 9 Y N 10 Y N 11 Y N 12 Y N 13 Y N 14 Was follow-up complete? Y N 15 Y N 16 Was the trial stopped early? Y N 17 Y N 18 Y N 19 *CD, cannot determine; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported **Quality Rating: Good (++), Fair (+), or Poor (-) Was the study described as randomized, a randomized trial, a randomized clinical trial, or an RCT? Was the method of randomization adequate (i.e., use of randomly generated assignment)? Were the groups similar at baseline on important characteristics that could affect outcomes (e.g., demographics, risk factors, co-morbid conditions)? Were the patients kept "blind" to which treatment was being received Were the clinicians kept "blind" to which treatment was being received Were the data collectors kept "blind" to which treatment was being received Were the Adjudicators of the outcomes kept "blind" to whch treatment was being received Were the data analysts kept "blind" to which treatment was being received Were all outcomes measured in a standard, valid and reliable manner Were patients analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized? Was the overall drop-out rate from the study at endpoint 20% or lower of the number allocated to treatment? Was the differential drop-out rate (between treatment groups) at endpoint 15 percentage points or lower? **How well was the study done to minimise the risk of bias or confounding? (check only one) High quality (++)___ Unaccepta

References Good - high quality (++): The majority of criteria met. There is minimal or no risk of bias. The result are unlikely to be changed by further research. Fair - Acceptable quality (+): Most of the criteria were met. There are some flaws in the study with bias. The study results or outcomes may change in the light of further studies. Poor - Unacceptable (-): Either most criteria not met, or significant flaws relating to key aspects of Conclusions likely to change in the light of further studies. 1. Guyatt, Rennie, D., Meade, M., & Cook, D. (2015). Users’ guides to the medical literature. Essenti based clinical practice (3rd edition.). McGraw-Hill Medical. 2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (2013). Study Quality Assessment Tools. National Instit Available from URL: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools 3. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Levels of Evidence (March 2009). University of Oxf URL: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/oxford-centre-for-evidence-based evidence-march-2009 4. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A guideline developer’s handbook. Edinburg publication no. 50). [November 2019]. Available from URL: https://www.sign.ac.uk/our-guidelines developers-handbook/

ts or study outcomes h an associated risk of study design. tials of evidence- titutes of Health. ford. Available from d-medicine-levels-of- gh: SIGN; 2019. (SIGN s/sign-50-a-guideline-