Dashboard
Grading
Results
Admin
Notifications
Settings

Checklist completion

Fill in the checklist based on your expertise

4 # - Effectiveness of at- home skin temperature monitoring in reducing the incidence of foot ulcer recurrence in people with diabetes: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

0 of 25 questions answered

5 # - Are appropriate definitions included for the terms “ulcer”, “healing”, and all other required aspects of the population and the outcomes?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

6 # - Was the choice of study population appropriate for the chosen intervention and the stated conclusions?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

7 # - Was there a control population that was managed at the same time as those in the intervention group or groups?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

8 # - Is the intervention sufficiently well described to enable another researcher to replicate the study?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

9 # - Are the components of other aspects of care described for the intervention and comparator groups?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

10 # - Were the participants randomised into intervention and comparator groups?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

11 # - Were the participants randomised by an independent person or agency?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

12 # - Was the number of participants studied in the trial based on an appropriate sample size calculation?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

13 # - Was the chosen primary outcome of direct clinical relevance?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

14 # - Was the person who assessed the primary outcome or outcomes blinded to group allocation?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

15 # - Were the clinical researcher who cared for the wound at research visits and the participants blinded to group allocation?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

16 # - Did the study complete recruitment?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

17 # - Was it possible to document the primary outcome in 75% or more of those recruited?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

18 # - Were the results analysed primarily by intention-to-treat analysis?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

19 # - Were appropriate statistical methods used throughout?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

20 # - Was the performance in the control group of the order that would be expected in routine clinical practice?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

21 # - Are the results from all participating centres comparable? Answer “yes” if the study was done in only one centre

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

22 # - Is the report free from errors of reporting—eg, discrepancies between data reported in different parts of the report?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

23 # - Are the important strengths and weaknesses of the study discussed in a balanced way?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

24 # - Are the conclusions supported by the findings?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

25 # - Is the report free from any suggestion that the analysis or the conclusions could have been substantially influenced by people with commercial or other personal interests in the findings?

Yes (+) No (-) Unclear (?)

Add a note...

Checklist completion

4 # - Effectiveness of at-­ home skin temperature monitoring in reducing the incidence of foot ulcer recurrence in people with diabetes: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

5 # - Are appropriate definitions included for the terms “ulcer”, “healing”, and all other required aspects of the population and the outcomes?

6 # - Was the choice of study population appropriate for the chosen intervention and the stated conclusions?

7 # - Was there a control population that was managed at the same time as those in the intervention group or groups?

8 # - Is the intervention sufficiently well described to enable another researcher to replicate the study?

9 # - Are the components of other aspects of care described for the intervention and comparator groups?

10 # - Were the participants randomised into intervention and comparator groups?

11 # - Were the participants randomised by an independent person or agency?

12 # - Was the number of participants studied in the trial based on an appropriate sample size calculation?

13 # - Was the chosen primary outcome of direct clinical relevance?

14 # - Was the person who assessed the primary outcome or outcomes blinded to group allocation?

15 # - Were the clinical researcher who cared for the wound at research visits and the participants blinded to group allocation?

16 # - Did the study complete recruitment?

17 # - Was it possible to document the primary outcome in 75% or more of those recruited?

18 # - Were the results analysed primarily by intention-to-treat analysis?

19 # - Were appropriate statistical methods used throughout?

20 # - Was the performance in the control group of the order that would be expected in routine clinical practice?

21 # - Are the results from all participating centres comparable? Answer “yes” if the study was done in only one centre

22 # - Is the report free from errors of reporting—eg, discrepancies between data reported in different parts of the report?

23 # - Are the important strengths and weaknesses of the study discussed in a balanced way?

24 # - Are the conclusions supported by the findings?

25 # - Is the report free from any suggestion that the analysis or the conclusions could have been substantially influenced by people with commercial or other personal interests in the findings?

4 # - Effectiveness of at- home skin temperature monitoring in reducing the incidence of foot ulcer recurrence in people with diabetes: a multicenter randomized controlled trial