Critical appraisal of a randomised controlled trial: an updated CASP tool, the pitfalls of using CASP, and other critical appraisal tools
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Critical appraisal of primary literature, primarily randomised controlled trials (RCT), is a critical thinking skill essential for healthcare professionals to support patient care. The previous article[1] introduced a critical appraisal tool for RCT called the critical appraisal skill programmed (CASP). It is composed of 11 items that answer three critical questions: 1) Are the results valid? 2) What are the results? and 3) How can I apply the results to my patients? In this article, the details of the updated CASP tool are explained and compared to the previous version. We also illustrate the caveats or pitfalls of using the CASP tool from our experience. Additionally, other critical appraisal tools for RCT will be introduced. Our main objective is to provide techniques for supporting decision-making skills that readers can apply to their work and improve patient care through evidence-based medicine.
Article Details
References
Na-Ek N. The guide to critically appraise a randomised controlled trials (RCT) using a CASP tool. Chiangrai Medical Journal. 2020;12(2):131–55.
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. 2020-CASP checklists. [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Sep 25]. Available from: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/.
Kirkwood BR, Sterne JAC. Essential medical statistics. 2nd ed. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Science; 2003.
What Works Clearinghouse. What Works ClearinghouseTM Standards Handbook (Version 4.0) [Internet]. [cited 2020 Aug 10]. Available from: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_standards_handbook_v4.pdf
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1-12.
Sholzberg M, Tang GH, Rahhal H, AlHamzah M, Kreuziger LB, Áinle FN, et al. Effectiveness of therapeutic heparin versus prophylactic heparin on death, mechanical ventilation, or intensive care unit admission in moderately ill patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital: RAPID randomised clinical trial. BMJ. 2021;375:n2400.
Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet. 1988;332(8607):349–60.
Xiong GL, Adams J. FRISBEE: does the study fly in the face of evidence-based medicine? Curr Psychiatr. 2007;6(12):96.
Duke University Medical Center Library & Archives. Evidence-based practice: appraise [Internet]. [cited 2020 Aug 11]. Available from: https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/ebm/appraise
Jackson R, Ameratunga S, Broad J, Connor J, Lethaby A, Robb G, et al. The GATE frame: critical appraisal with pictures. Evid Based Med. 2006;11(2):35-8
Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.
Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJW, Altman DG. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA. 2012;308(24):2594–604.
