Appraisal Checklist Case Control
xlsx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Liberty University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
810
Subject
Medicine
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
xlsx
Pages
4
Uploaded by GrandSummer2875
Part I
APA style citation of the critiqued article (type in box below)
1
Part II
Abstract
2
Submit 150-200-word abstract in a separate Word document. See instructions for the f
Part III
Quality Criteria (If you check CD, NA, NR you need to identify which it is by indicating 3
Y
N 4
Was the study population clearly specified and defined?
Y
N 5
Y
N 6
Were inclusion and exclusion criteria explcicitly stated?
Y
N 7
Was the sample size justified or effect size reported?
Y
N 8
Y
N 9
Y
N 10
Was there use of concurrent controls?
Y
N 11
Y
N 12
Y
N 13
Y
N 14
Y
N 16
*CD, cannot determine; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported
**Quality Rating: Good (++), Fair (+), or Poor (-)
Was the clinical question or objective in this paper clearly stated?
Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were the cases clearly defined and differentiated from controls?
If less than 100 percent of eligible cases and/or controls were selected for the study, were the cases and/or controls randomly selected from those eligible?
Were the investigators able to confirm that the exposure/risk occurred prior to the development of the condition or event that defined a participant as a case?
Were the measures of exposure/risk clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently (including the same time period) across all study participants?
Were the assessors of exposure/risk blinded to the case or control status of participants?
Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically in the analyses? If matching was used, did the investigators account for matching during study analysis?
**How well was the study done to minimise the risk of bias or confounding? (check only one)
High quality (++)___
Unaccepta
Good - high quality (++): The majority of criteria met. There is minimal or no risk of bias. The result
are unlikely to be changed by further research. Fair - Acceptable quality (+): Most of the criteria were met. There are some flaws in the study with
bias. The study results or outcomes may change in the light of further studies.
References
Poor - Unacceptable (-): Either most criteria not met, or significant flaws relating to key aspects of Conclusions likely to change in the light of further studies. 1. Guyatt, Rennie, D., Meade, M., & Cook, D. (2015). Users’ guides to the medical literature. Essenti
based clinical practice (3rd edition.). McGraw-Hill Medical. 2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (2013). Study Quality Assessment Tools. National Instit
Available from URL: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools
3. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Levels of Evidence (March 2009). University of Oxf
URL: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/oxford-centre-for-evidence-based
evidence-march-2009
4. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A guideline developer’s handbook. Edinburg
publication no. 50). [November 2019]. Available from URL: https://www.sign.ac.uk/our-guidelines
developers-handbook/
format requirements.
CD, NA, or NR) CD, NA, or NR*
CD, NA, or NR*
CD, NA, or NR*
CD, NA, or NR*
CD, NA, or NR*
_ Acceptable (+) ___ able (–)___
ts or study outcomes h an associated risk of
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
study design. tials of evidence-
titutes of Health. ford. Available from d-medicine-levels-of-
gh: SIGN; 2019. (SIGN s/sign-50-a-guideline-