2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.1184
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Critical appraisal of non-randomized controlled trials – a review of recommended and commonly used tools

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, cohort studies were appraised according to the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale for observational cohort studies . In this respect, three domains were scored concerning selection and comparability of study cohorts, and outcome of interest was ascertained using a score range of 0 to 9.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In addition, cohort studies were appraised according to the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale for observational cohort studies . In this respect, three domains were scored concerning selection and comparability of study cohorts, and outcome of interest was ascertained using a score range of 0 to 9.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, cohort studies were appraised according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational cohort studies. 19 In this respect, three domains were scored concerning selection and comparability of study cohorts, and outcome of interest was ascertained using a score range of 0 to 9. If a study obtained ≥70% of the highest level of Newcastle-Ottawa scale, it was considered as high quality, 40%-70% as moderate, 20%-40% as moderate and <20% as very low quality.…”
Section: Quality Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 of the studies were RCTs, with the remaining four papers consisting of a pilot study, two randomised experimental studies and a controlled trial. Although non-randomised studies are lower in the hierarchy of evidence it is acknowledged that 'real world data' from smaller studies is having a significant impact on health care decision making (Quigley et al 2014).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for RCTs (randomised controlled trials) (CASP 2015) was selected for critical appraisal of the papers. There appears to be no consensus on the most appropriate tool for non-randomised studies and Quigley et al (2014) states that the CASP RCT checklist is often used to appraise both study designs, even though it is not validated to do so. Use of a single checklist in this instance was deemed to be the most efficient way of appraising all papers consistently but is acknowledged as a potential source of bias in the review.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The CASP tools do not include a tool to assess the quality of guidelines and non-randomized studies. To address this gap, a tool created by Downs and Black (1998) that has held up in terms of rigour and usefulness, making it one of the most commonly used tools (Quigley, Thompson, Halfpenny, & Scott, 2014), is used to analyze non-randomized studies included in this review. To ensure robust critical appraisal of the guideline included in this review, the Appraisal of Guidelines for…”
Section: Search Outcomesmentioning
confidence: 99%