A checklist to evaluate a report of a nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensus.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE To develop a checklist of items measuring the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing nonpharmacological treatments (NPTs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING The Delphi consensus method was used to select and reduce the number of items in the checklist. A total of 154 individuals were invited to participate: epidemiologists and statisticians involved in the field of methodology of RCTs (n = 55), members of the Cochrane Collaboration (n = 41), and clinicians involved in planning NPT clinical trials (n = 58). Participants ranked on a 10-point Likert scale whether an item should be included in the checklist. RESULTS Fifty-five experts (36%) participated in the survey. They were experienced in systematic reviews (68% were involved in the Cochrane Collaboration) and in planning RCTs (76%). Three rounds of the Delphi method were conducted to achieve consensus. The final checklist contains 10 items and 5 subitems, with items related to the standardization of the intervention, care provider influence, and additional measures to minimize the potential bias from lack of blinding of participants, care providers, and outcome assessors. CONCLUSIONS This tool can be used to critically appraise the medical literature, design NPT studies, and assess the quality of trial reports included in systematic reviews.

[1]  C. Bennett,et al.  The learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 1995 .

[2]  Cindy Farquhar,et al.  3 The Cochrane Library , 1996 .

[3]  Isabelle Boutron,et al.  Methodological differences in clinical trials evaluating nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments of hip and knee osteoarthritis. , 2003, JAMA.

[4]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. , 1995, Controlled clinical trials.

[5]  Mitsuru Sasako,et al.  Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  D. Cook,et al.  Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? , 1998, The Lancet.

[7]  R. J. Hayes,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. , 1995, JAMA.

[8]  M. Swiontkowski,et al.  Relationship between the Volume of Total Hip Replacements Performed by Providers and the Rates of Postoperative Complications in the State of Washington* , 1997, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[9]  D. Sackett,et al.  Benefit of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic moderate or severe stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. , 2001, BMJ.

[11]  Isabelle Boutron,et al.  Blinding was judged more difficult to achieve and maintain in nonpharmacologic than pharmacologic trials. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  Gordon H. Guyatt,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. , 1993, JAMA.

[13]  G H Guyatt,et al.  USERS' GUIDES TO THE MEDICAL LITERATURE. II: HOW TO USE AN ARTICLE ABOUT THERAPY OR PREVENTION A. ARE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY VALID ? , 1993 .

[14]  P. A. van den Brandt,et al.  The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews. , 2001, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  P. Katrak,et al.  A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools , 2004, BMC medical research methodology.

[16]  H. Vet,et al.  The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature. , 1993, JAMA.

[18]  L. Wilkins.  North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial. Methods, patient characteristics, and progress. , 1991, Stroke.

[19]  A. Buchan,et al.  *North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) Steering Committee. Beneficial Effect of Carotid Endarterectomy in Symptomatic Patients with High-Grade Carotid Stenosis. , 1991 .

[20]  C. Lavernia,et al.  Relationship of surgical volume to short-term mortality, morbidity, and hospital charges in arthroplasty. , 1995, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[21]  N. Black.  Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care , 1996, BMJ.

[22]  D. Sackett,et al.  Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. , 1979, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  D. Sackett,et al.  Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  D Moher,et al.  CONSORT: an evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. , 1998, JAMA.

[25]  E L Hannan,et al.  The fall and rise of carotid endarterectomy in the United States and Canada. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  D Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association.

[27]  D. Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials , 2001, The Lancet.

[28]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  BMC Medical Research Methodology , 2002 .

[29]  Gordon H. Guyatt,et al.  How to Use an Article About Therapy or Prevention , 1995 .

[30]  M. Choti,et al.  Hospital volume can serve as a surrogate for surgeon volume for achieving excellent outcomes in colorectal resection. , 1999, Annals of surgery.

[31]  R. McLeod,et al.  Randomized controlled trials in surgery: Issues and problems. , 1996, Surgery.

[32]  E. Hannan,et al.  Relationship between provider volume and mortality for carotid endarterectomies in New York state. , 1998, Stroke.

[33]  M. Soljak.  Volume of procedures and outcome of treatment , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[34]  A R Jadad,et al.  Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? , 1996, Controlled clinical trials.

[35]  T. Ryan,et al.  Relation between operator and hospital volume and outcomes following percutaneous coronary interventions in the era of the coronary stent. , 2000, JAMA.

[36]  R. Bell,et al.  Relation of surgical volume to outcome in eight common operations: results from the VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. , 1999, Annals of surgery.

[37]  D. Streiner,et al.  Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to thier development and use , 1989 .

[38]  B. Hagen,et al.  THE EFFECT OF CENTRALIZATION OF PRIMARY SURGERY ON SURVIVAL IN OVARIAN CANCER PATIENTS , 2003, International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer.

[39]  D. Rennie,et al.  Measuring the quality of trials: the quality of quality scales. , 1999, JAMA.

[40]  D. Hunter,et al.  Qualitative Research: Consensus methods for medical and health services research , 1995 .

[41]  J Stewart,et al.  Identifying appropriate tasks for the preregistration year: modified Delphi technique , 1999, BMJ.

[42]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.