Glucose Analytical Comparability Evaluation

Running head: CRITICAL APPRAISAL
CRITICAL APPRAISAL
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CRITICAL APPRAISAL
True randomisation
Yes. The sampling technique was in described with clarity and the 21 participants were
selected who were type 1 diabetes affected. Hence, every participant of the study has the chance
of generating similar risks (Kropff et al., 2017). Thus, according to Deaton and Cartwright
(2018), it can be highlighted as the true randomisation. Moreover, the process of the random
selection of the participants has been described in a systematic way, that is the participant
selection criteria and the allocation procedure has been described in a flow chart with proper
causal description. Hence, the randomisation can be marked as true randomisation procedure.
Concealed allocation
No. The study staffs and the participants were aware about the allocation process.
Although the allocation process was random however, as the allocation and the intervention was
known to the participants the concealed allocation has not been achieved (Clark, Fairhurst &
Torgerson, 2016). Thus, the lack of proper blinding of the participants and the study staffs can
develop a bias as well. Hence, it can be clearly seen that the process of the allocation has not
been concealed from the participants.
Similarity of baseline and treatment groups
Yes. It has been seen that the study has been conducted on the type 1 diabetes patients
and the baseline data of the patients were calculated with the help of Bland-Altman analysis
(Doğan, 2018). Moreover, three baseline conditions of the patients have been considered and the
difference after the treatment provided to the participants has been assessed. Based on the
assessment it has been seen that the outcome of the treatment has been related to the baseline
data. The changes have been based on the treatment and the change of the baseline data of the
participants as well (Kropff et al., 2017). However, the process was effective in terms of

2CRITICAL APPRAISAL
hyperglycaemia patients and not effective for the participants of hypoglycaemia patients. The
selection process has not been showed any biasness and the change is similar to the intervention
provided to the participants in relation to the baseline data.
Participants blind to treatment assignment
No. The participants have not been blind to the treatment. It has been seen that the
participants and the study staffs were aware about the intervention and the allocation of the
intervention as well. Hence, according to (Aftab et al., 2016), it can develop significant threat of
the biasness in the study results as well. Moreover, the change can be biased as well despite of
the random selection of the participants as well.
Study staffs blind to treatment assignment
No. The study staffs have not been blind to the treatment. It has been seen that the study
staffs were aware about the intervention and the allocation of the intervention as well. Hence,
according to Chandereng and Chappell (2019), it can develop significant biasness in the study
results as well. Moreover, the change can be biased as well despite of the random selection of the
participants as well.
Assessors blind to treatment
Unclear. There has not been any kind of specific mentioning about the consideration of
the knowledge of the assessors. Hence, it is unclear that the assessors have any knowledge about
the assignment of the treatment for the participants or the allocation of the participants in this
study (Kropff et al., 2017). Moreover, three baseline conditions of the patients have been
considered and the difference after the treatment provided to the participants has been assessed.
Based on the assessment it has been seen that the outcome of the treatment has been related to
the baseline data.