Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Paper for appraisal and reference: The Efficacy of Honey Solution as a Plaque Reducing Agent

Section A: Are the results of the trial valid?

1. Did the trial address a clearly Yes HINT: An issue can be ‘focused’ In terms of
focused issue? √
• the population studied
Can’t Tell • the intervention given
 the comparator given
No
• the outcomes considered

Comments: Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk membandingkan manfaat larutan madu 5% dan 25%
terhadap akuades sebagai obat kumur untuk mengontrol pembentukan plak gigi selama 4 hari
penelitian. Madu merupakan obat tradisional untuk luka terinfeksi dan dinyatakan mempunyai
pengaruh menghambat sekitar 60 spesies termasuk bakteri aerob dan anaerob gram positif dan gram
negatif.

2. Was the assignment of Yes HINT: Consider


patients to treatments √
randomised?  how this was carried out
Can’t Tell  was the allocation sequence concealed
from researchers and patients
No

Comments: Jumlah responden adalah 44 mahasiswa Fakultas Kedokteran Gigi di Universitas Indonesia.

3. Were all of the patients Yes HINT: Consider


who entered the trial √
• was the trial stopped early
properly accounted for at
Can’t Tell • were patients analysed in the groups to
its conclusion?
which they were randomised
No

Comments: Didapatkan peningkatan bermakna indeks plak dalam setiap kelompok penelitian, tetapi
tidak berbeda antara ketiga kelompok pada setiap hari dalam waktu penelitian.

Is it worth continuing? Ya
4. Were patients, health Yes
workers and study personnel
‘blind’ to treatment? Can’t Tell

No √

Comments: Peneliti mengetahui apa yang akan diteliti dan pasien telah menyetujui penelitian tersebut
setelah diberi keterangan dan menandatangani informed consent.

5.Were the groups similar at Yes HINT: Consider



the start of the trial • other factors that might affect the
Can’t Tell outcome, such as; age, sex, social class

No

Comments: Kelompok telah disetarakan sejak awal karena tidak ada perbedaan pada populasi yang
diberi intervensi.

6. Aside from the experimental


intervention, were the groups Yes
treated equally?
Can’t Tell

No

Comments: Setiap kelompok control diberikan perlakuan yang berbeda. Kelompok kontrol satu
diperlakukan dengan memberikan larutan madu untuk kumur sebesar 5%, kelompok kontrol dua 25%,
dan kelompok kontrol tiga berkumur menggunakan akuades.

Section B: What are the results?


7. How large was the treatment effect? HINT: Consider
 what outcomes were
measured
 Is the primary outcome clearly
specified
 what results were found for
each outcome

Comments: Didapatkan peningkatan bermakna indeks plak dalam setiap kelompok penelitian, tetapi
tidak berbeda antara ketiga kelompok pada setiap hari dalam waktu penelitian. Namun, ditemukan nilai
p sejak hari 1 (0,766) menurun secara bertahap ke hari ke 4 (0,076).

8. How precise was the estimate of the treatment HINT: Consider


effect?  what are the confidence limits

Comments: Sifat antimikroba larutan madu sebagai obat kumur belum menunjukkan pengaruh
bermanfaat untuk menghambat pembentukan plak gigi hingga hari ke 4 penelitian.

Section C: Will the results help locally?

9. Can the results be applied to Yes HINT: Consider whether



the local population, or in  the patients covered by the trial are
your context? Can’t Tell similar enough to the patients to whom
you will apply this
No  how they differ

Comments: Ya, karena larutan madu tidak memiliki efek yang berbahaya bila digunakan kepada
populasi lain.

Yes HINT: Consider whether


 there is other information you would
10.Were all clinically important Can’t Tell like to have seen

outcomes considered?  if not, does this affect the decision
No

Comments: -
Yes HINT: Consider
11. Are the benefits worth the √
harms and costs?  even if this is not addressed by the
Can’t Tell trial, what do you think?

No

Comments: Larutan madu tidak terlalu berbahaya jika digunakan bahkan tanpa melalui penelitian
sekalipun.
Comments: