Table 5 Quality appraisal using CASP checklist for randomised controlled trials
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) |