Critical Appraisal of Clinical Trials on Weight Loss and Diabetes

CRITICAL APPRAISAL
CRITICAL APPRAISAL
By
[Name]
Course
Professor’s Name
Institution
Location of Institution
Date

CRITICAL APPRAISAL
Critical Appraisal 1 (Set 2 Dixon 2008)
The JBI tool was used in critical appraisal. According to the JBI tool, there was true
randomization that was used to assign participants into the treatment groups. An
advertisement was placed in a newspaper and people who matched the criteria volunteered to
participate. The participants were divided into groups using a computer; the two groups were
conventional therapy program and surgery therapy program. The allocation groups were
concealed. The participants were not aware of which group they would be placed in. This,
therefore, prevented them deliberately intervening a location into a group.
The treatment groups were similar at baseline, according to the JBI tool. In this Clinical trial,
before the patients were selected to participate in the study, they underwent a clinical
assessment to determine the BMI, medical exclusions, surgical exclusions among other
factors. It was from this procedure that the participants were divided into two groups and
hence they had a similar baseline (Aminian et al. 2015, p.682-684).
The participants in the study were not blinded. Participants under the surgical program
already knew that they will undergo surgery and they will be reviewed every 4 to 6 weeks.
On the other hand, participants in the conventional therapy program knew that they will have
open access to a dietician and clinician and also will undergo a review once every six weeks.
Those delivering the treatment were also not blind to the study. The two groups require
different types of health workers and re-evaluation. The health workers were aware of the
treatment method and this may have influenced the outcome of the results obtained. Both of
the two groups were treated identically, apart from the intervention that as implemented, just
like in the JBI tool. There was no significant difference in the care received by the
participants regardless of the treatment plan (Jordan, Lockwood, Munn, and Aromataris
2018, p 227-241)

CRITICAL APPRAISAL
Follow up was done at least once every six weeks. The various differences between the two
groups were adequately analyzed by the researcher. Factors analyzed include weight loss,
glycemic control, physical activity, and medication used for diabetes (Pareek et al. 2018,
p.670-687).
The outcomes of each of the two groups were analyzed in a similar way. The appropriate
statistical analysis was used in this clinical trial. In both groups, the mean and the standard
deviation was analyzed, a t-test was also conducted and the p-value found for both groups.
According to the JBI tool, the outcomes were measured using reliable methods. The
statistical analysis presentation method was also reliable. It allowed the researcher to
compare the results from the two groups. Displaying the data in graphs and tables made it
easier to analyze and interpret the results obtained. It can, therefore, be concluded that
according to the JBI tool the trial design was appropriate for the topic selected. Any deviation
from the standard design of random clinical trials was accounted for in the analysis section
(Davies et al. 2015), p.687-699).
Critical Appraisal 2 (Set 2 Keating 2009).
There was true randomization used to assign participants to the treatment groups which fulfils
the requirement for the JBI tool for randomized clinical trials. Allocating the participants
randomly helped to maintain the integrity of the results obtained. It allowed the researcher to
compare the results without being influenced by the characteristics of the patient. The
allocation to groups was concealed. The participants did not have a chance to choose which
group they would be placed in and could therefore not interfere with the allocation process
(Porritt, Gomersall and Lockwood 2014, p 47-52).
The two groups analyzed, surgically induced weight loss and conventional medical therapy
had no significant differences in their demographics or other values. They both had a similar