quality to be considered can be found in (University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination). For the quality assessments of non-randomised and evidence, use an appropriate and validated quality assessment instrument. Key aspects of quality to be considered can be found in Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination). This includes information on a number of initiatives aimed at improving the quality of research reporting. Consider how closely the trials reflect routine clinical practice in England. If there is more than 1 trial, tabulate a summary of the responses applied to each of the quality assessment criteria. A suggested table format for the quality assessment results is given below. Table X Quality assessment results for parallel group RCTs Trial number Trial 1 Trial 2 [Add (acronym) more columns as needed] Was randomisation (yes/no/not clear/N/A) (yes/no/not clear/N/A) carried out appropriately? Was the (yes/no/not clear/N/A) (yes/no/not clear/N/A) concealment of treatment allocation adequate? Were the groups (yes/no/not clear/N/A) (yes/no/not clear/N/A) similar at the outset of the study in terms of prognostic factors? Were the care (yes/no/not clear/N/A) (yes/no/not clear/N/A) providers, participants and outcome assessors blind to treatment allocation? Were there any (yes/no/not clear/N/A) (yes/no/not clear/N/A) unexpected
quality to be considered can be found in (University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination). For the quality assessments of non-randomised and evidence, use an appropriate and validated quality assessment instrument. Key aspects of quality to be considered can be found in Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination). This includes information on a number of initiatives aimed at improving the quality of research reporting. Consider how closely the trials reflect routine clinical practice in England. If there is more than 1 trial, tabulate a summary of the responses applied to each of the quality assessment criteria. A suggested table format for the quality assessment results is given below. Table X Quality assessment results for parallel group RCTs Trial number (acronym) Trial 1 Trial 2 [Add more columns as needed] Was randomisation carried out appropriately? (yes/no/not clear/N/A) (yes/no/not clear/N/A) Was the concealment of treatment allocation adequate? (yes/no/not clear/N/A) (yes/no/not clear/N/A) Were the groups similar at the outset of the study in terms of prognostic factors? (yes/no/not clear/N/A) (yes/no/not clear/N/A) Were the care providers, participants and outcome assessors blind to treatment allocation? (yes/no/not clear/N/A) (yes/no/not clear/N/A) Were there any unexpected (yes/no/not clear/N/A) (yes/no/not clear/N/A)