EBM Principles 2 Flashcards
Methodological points to consider in appraisal of an RCT
Was process of allocation truly random?
Would participants have been able to know or guess their allocation?
Were participants and researchers blinded?
Were outcomes assessed objectively?
Were all participants allocated accounted for in final analysis?
Were all participants data analyzed in the group to which they were allocated?
Methodological points to consider in appraisal of cohort studies
Is it prospective or retrospective?
Is cohort representative of defined group/population?
Were all important confounding factors identified?
Were all important exposures/treatments/potential confounding factors and outcomes measured accurately and objectively in all members of the cohort?
Were there important losses to follow-up?
Were participants followed up for a sufficient length of time?
Key methodological points to consider in appraisal of systematic reviews & meta-analyses
Were all relevant studies included?
Were selected articles appraised and data extracted by 2 independent reviewers?
Was sufficient detail provided about primary studies including description of patients, interventions and outcomes?
Was the quality of the primary studies assessed?
Did the researchers assess the appropriateness of combining results to calculate a summary measure?
Key methodological points to consider in appraisal of case-control studies
Were the cases clearly defined?
Were the cases representative of a defined population?
How were the controls selected and were they drawn from the same population as the cases?
Were study measures identical for cases and controls?
Were study measures objective or subjective and is recall bias likely if subjective?
Key methodological points to consider in appraisal of cross-sectional studies
Was study sample clearly defined?
Was a representative sample achieved? i.e. was response rate sufficiently high
Were all relevant exposures, potential confounding factors and outcomes measured accurately?
Were patients with a wide severity of diseases assessed?
Key methodological points to consider in the appraisal of studies of diagnostic accuracy
Does the sample of patients represent the full spectrum of patients with and without diagnosis of interest?
Was there comparison with an appropriate gold standard test?
Did all patients receive both the test under evaluation and the gold standard test?
Were the tests performed independently with blinding of assessors to results of the gold standard?
Were the cut-offs that were used to classify patients as having a positive result clearly described?
