Critical Appraisal of Type 1 Diabetes Epidemiology Using CASP Tool

This report presents a critical appraisal of a peer-reviewed article on the global epidemiology of Type 1 diabetes in young adults and adults, employing the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) tool for systematic review. The analysis addresses ten key questions, evaluating the study's focus, sampling methods, inclusion of relevant studies, quality assessment, and findings. The appraisal highlights strengths, such as the clear research aim and relevant study selection, while also identifying limitations, including the age of selected articles, non-English language bias, and lack of rigorous quality assessment. The report concludes by discussing the applicability of the results to a local population, considering the study's limitations, and suggesting areas for future research, emphasizing the need for more critical research to improve health conditions related to type 1 diabetes. The study also provides a list of references used during the analysis.

CRITICAL
APPRAISAL USING
CASP TOOL
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

INTRODUCION
■ The major aim of the study is to critically analyse
the peer review article on global epidemiology of
Type 1 diabetes in young adults and adults.
■ CASP tools for systematic review of the articles
have been chosen
■ The CASP tool is addressing the 10 questions.

OVERVIEW
■ Did the review address a clearly focused
question?
YES
The aim of the research was to search for the
various incidence of type 1 Diabetes among
the young adult and adult.

SAMPLING
■ Did the authors look for the right type of papers?
YES
- The article selected contain RCT and cohort based
studies addressing the research question.
■ Do you think all the important, relevant studies were included?
NO
- Sample article were old in publication and non-English
language which is making the studies irrelevant.

METHOD
■ Did the review’s authors do enough to assess
quality of the included studies?
YES
- Lack of rigor was noticed in the paper as
Inclusion/exclusion criteria is not highlighted
and no use of quality assessment was done of
70 selected articles.

FINDING
■ If the results of the review have been combined, was it reasonable to do so?
YES
-Used critical discussion of the paper.
■ What are the overall results of the review?
YES
-Finding- People reaching the age of 14, incidence of type 1
diabetes gets lowered in adulthood
■ Can the results be applied to the local population?
YES
-Article chosen were of different country thus covering
perspective of local population.

LIMITATION
■ Were all important outcomes considered?
NO
-As many limitation was noticed in the
paper like limitation of search of articles from
different database and lack of relevant result
and the outcome were not considered.

CONCLUSION
■ Are the benefits worth the harms and costs?
YES but need more research.
-The study ask for more critical research
on the area of incidence of type 1 diabetes.
-Future implication of the study will
improve the health condition of the growing
generation as research on diabetes can
improve the

REFERENCE
Andrei, F., Siegling, A.B., Aloe, A.M., Baldaro, B. and Petrides, K.V., 2016. The incremental validity of the Trait Emotional
Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of personality assessment, 98(3),
pp.261-276.
Cottrell, S., 2017. Critical thinking skills: Effective analysis, argument and reflection. Macmillan International Higher
Education.
Diaz-Valencia, P.A., Bougnères, P. and Valleron, A.J., 2015. Global epidemiology of type 1 diabetes in young adults and
adults: a systematic review. BMC public health, 15(1), p.255.
Fink, A., 2019. Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper. Sage publications.
Manzanares, W., Lemieux, M., Langlois, P.L. and Wischmeyer, P.E., 2016. Probiotic and synbiotic therapy in critical illness: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Critical care, 20(1), p.262.
Martin-Martin, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Harzing, A.W. and López-Cózar, E.D., 2017. Can we use Google Scholar to identify
highly-cited documents?. Journal of informetrics, 11(1), pp.152-163.
Moylan, E.C. and Kowalczuk, M.K., 2016. Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction
notices at BioMed Central. BMJ open, 6(11), p.e012047.
Müller-Stich, B.P., Senft, J.D., Warschkow, R., Kenngott, H.G., Billeter, A.T., Vit, G., Helfert, S., Diener, M.K., Fischer, L.,
Büchler, M.W. and Nawroth, P.P., 2015. Surgical versus medical treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in nonseverely obese
patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of surgery, 261(3), pp.421-429.
Whiting, P., Savović, J., Higgins, J.P., Caldwell, D.M., Reeves, B.C., Shea, B., Davies, P., Kleijnen, J. and Churchill, R., 2016.
ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 69, pp.225-
234.