The guide to critically appraise a randomised controlled trial (RCT) using CASP tool
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Randomised controlled trials (RCT) is a study design universally accepted as the top hierarchical quality amongst all kinds of primary literature. However, findings from RCT can be biased and mislead, providing that it does not comply with proper methodological consideration. Therefore, critical appraisal is the fundamental skill required amongst health care professionals who adopt the concept of evidence-based medicine in their practice. Currently, there are several appraisal tools available with different pros and cons. In this article, an appraisal tool called CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Programme) is introduced due to its relatively short list of questions, which cover the main issues that should be concerned in conducting an RCT. Nonetheless, regardless of the chosen tool, results of critical appraisal should lead clinicians to answer the following critical questions: 1) Are the results valid?, 2) What are the results?, And 3) How can the results be applied to the patients? These questions can help to guide clinicians whether or not RCT that they read is worth implementing further. The ultimate goal is to provide patients with the best quality of care.
Article Details
References
1. 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.
2. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1–12.
3. 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.
4. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1993;270(21):2598–601. **
5. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. B. What were the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;271(1):59–63. **
6. Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, De Zeeuw D, Fulcher G, Erondu N, et al. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(7):644–57.
7. Powers AC. Chapter 419: Diabetes Mellitus - Complications. In: Kasper DL, Fauci AS, Hauser SL, Longo DL, Jameson JL, Loscalzo J, editors. Harrison’s principles of internal medicine. 19th ed. New York: McGraw Hill Education Medical; 2015. p. 2422–30.
8. Kroon LA, Williams C. Diabetes mellitus. In: Alldredge BK, Jacobson PA, Corelli RL, Kradjan WA, Ernst ME, Williams BR, et al., editors. Applied therapeutics : The clinical use of drugs. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013. p. 1223–300.
9. Clark L, Fairhurst C, Torgerson DJ. Allocation concealment in randomised controlled trials: Are we getting better? BMJ. 2016;355:1–5.
10. Altman DG, Bland JM. Treatment allocation by minimisation. BMJ. 2005;330(7495):843.
11. Facey KM, Lewis JA. Guidelines On Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials. In: Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online [Internet]. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2014 [cited 2020 Mar 5]. Available from: https://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/9781118445112.stat04940
12. Points to consider on switching between superiority and non-inferiority. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;52(3):223–8.
13. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Mine is bigger than yours measures of effect size in research. Chest. 2012;141(3):595–8.
14. Azuero A. A note on the magnitude of hazard ratios. Cancer. 2016;122(8):1298–9.
15. Lopes RD, Heizer G, Aronson R, Vora AN, Massaro T, Mehran R, et al. Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(16):1509–24.
16. De Lemos ML, Barratt AL, Wyer PC, Guyatt G, Simpson JM. NNT for studies with long-term follow-up. CMAJ. 2005;172(5):613–5.
