. 2020 Oct 1;10(10):699. doi: 10.3390/brainsci10100699

Table A1.

Assessment of the quality of the randomized control trials with the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) checklist.

Reference

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

Rater
1

Rater
2

Rater
1

Rater
2

Rater
1

Rater
2

Rater
1

Rater
2

Rater
1

Rater
2

Rater
1

Rater
2

Rater
1

Rater
2

1. Did the trial address a clearly focused issue?

✓

2. Was the assignment of patients to treatments randomised?

✓

3. Were all of the patients who entered the trial properly accounted for at its conclusion?

✓

4. Were patients, health workers and study personnel ‘blind’ to treatment?

✓

5. Were the groups similar at the start of the trial?

✓

6. Aside from the experimental intervention, were the groups treated equally?

✓

*Was the estimated treatment effect adequately reported?

✓

9. Can the results be applied to the local population, or in your context?

✓

10. Were all clinically important outcomes considered?

✓

11. Are the benefits worth the harms and costs?

✓

The original CASP checklist includes item 7 (How large was the treatment effect?) and item 8 (How precise was the estimate of the treatment effect?). These items were substituted by item *Was the estimated treatment effect adequately reported? ✓: Yes; x: No, ?: Can’t tell.