CASP Checklist for Review and Randomized Control Study on Medical Honey

This article presents the CASP checklist for the validity of review and randomized control study on medical honey. The checklist includes criteria for the study's validity, results, and local applicability. The study names and CASP criteria are included.

CASP checklist for the included review study
CASP criteria for review
study
Study Name
Jull, Walker &
Deshpande, 2013
Maddocks &
Jenkins, 2013
Eteraf-
Oskouei &
Najafi, 2013
Section A: Are the results of the review valid?
1. Did the review address a
clearly focussed question? Yes Yes Yes
2. Did the author look at the
right type of paper? Yes Yes Yes
3. Do you think all the
important, relevant studies
were included?
Yes Yes Yes
4. Did the review’s authors do
enough to assess quality of the
included studies?
Yes No No
5. If the results of the review
have been combined, was it
reasonable to do so?
Yes No No
Section B: What are the results?
6. What are the overall results
of the review?
Honey is effective in
treatment for wound.
Medical honey
needs further
study
Honey is
effective
against injuries
7. How precise are the results? Results have 95% CI NA NA
Section C: Will the results help locally?
8. Can the results be applied to
the local population? Yes Yes Yes
9. Were all important
outcomes considered? Yes Yes Yes
11. Are the benefits worth the
harms and costs? Yes No Yes
CASP checklist for the included randomized control study:
CASP criteria for randomized
control study
Study Name
Boekema & Ulrich,
2013 Noori et al., 2013
Section A: Are the results of the trial valid?

1. Did the trial address a clearly
focussed issue? Yes Yes
2. Was the assignment of patients to
treatments randomised? Yes Yes
3. Were all of the patients who
entered the trial properly accounted
for at its conclusion?
Yes Yes
4. Were patients, health workers and
study personal ‘blind’ to treatment? Can’t tell Can’t tell
5. Were the groups similar at the
start of the trial? Yes Yes
6. Aside from the experimental
intervention, were the groups treated
equally?
Yes Yes
Section B: What are the results?
7. How large was the treatment
effect?
Samples were collected
from different
geographical location
Good
8. How precise was the estimate of
the treatment effect?
No statistical significant
data
Statistically
significant data.
Section C: Will the results help locally?
9. Can the results be applied to the
local population, or in your context? Yes Yes
10. Were all clinically important
outcomes considered? Yes Yes
11. Are the benefits worth the harms
and costs? Yes Yes

Bibliography
Boekema, B. K. H. L., Pool, L., & Ulrich, M. M. W. (2013). The effect of a honey based gel
and silver sulphadiazine on bacterial infections of in vitro burn wounds. Burns, 39(4),
754-759.
Eteraf-Oskouei, T., & Najafi, M. (2013). Traditional and modern uses of natural honey in
human diseases: a review. Iranian journal of basic medical sciences, 16(6), 731.
Jull, A. B., Walker, N., & Deshpande, S. (2013). Honey as a topical treatment for
wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2(2).
Maddocks, S. E., & Jenkins, R. E. (2013). Honey: a sweet solution to the growing problem of
antimicrobial resistance?. Future microbiology, 8(11), 1419-1429.
Noori, A. L., Al Ghamdi, A., Ansari, M. J., Al-Attal, Y., Al-Mubarak, A., & Salom, K.
(2013). Differences in composition of honey samples and their impact on the
antimicrobial activities against drug multiresistant bacteria and pathogenic
fungi. Archives of medical research, 44(4), 307-316.