Skip to main content

Table 5 Quality appraisal using CASP checklist for randomised controlled trials

From: A systematic review of non-antibiotic measures for the prevention of urinary tract infections in pregnancy

CASP randomised control study checklist
  Ochoa-Brust et al. 2007 [31] Grischke et al. 1987 [30] Wing et al. 2008 [27] Essadi et al. 2010 [28]
Did the trial address a clearly focused issue? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Was the assignment of patients to treatments randomised? Yes N (although described as randomised) Yes Can’t tell
Were all of the patients who entered the trial properly accounted for at its conclusion? No No Yes Yes
Were patients, health workers and study personnel ‘blind’ to treatment? No No (only patients were blinded) Yes No (able to differentiate between juice and water)
Were the groups similar at the start of the trial? Yes No (different pregnancy status) Yes Yes
Aside from the experimental intervention, were the groups treated equally? Yes Yes Yes Can’t tell
How large was the treatment effect? Significant (p = 0.03) Significant (p ≤ 0.001) Not significant (p = 0.71) Significant (p < 0.05)
How precise was the estimate of the treatment effect? Precise (95% CI used) Can’t tell (no CI limits) Precise (95% CI used) Can’t tell (no CI limits)
Can the results be applied in your context? (Or to the local population) Yes Probable Yes Yes
Were all clinically important outcomes considered? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Are the benefits worth the harms and costs? Yes Yes N (due to stomach disturbances) No (due to stomach disturbances)
  1. CI Confidence interval. Significance: p ≤ 0.05