Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The top part of the form identifies the study and links it to the particular guideline and key question to which it relates. It includes
reminders of factors you should consider before deciding whether it is worth progressing to a full appraisal of the paper
concerned.
Section 1
This section makes a series of statements about aspects of the systematic review process that affect the internal validity of the
review and asks you to assess how well the review addresses each issue. The objective is to assess how well the authors have
dealt with the risk of bias in their methods.
If you would like more information on randomised controlled trials, their characteristics and weaknesses then please refer to
Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper: the basics of evidence-based medicine. 3rd edition. Oxford: Blackwell;2006. Section 3.3
Page 44.
Note that the Response column is for guidance only. You may opt for a different rating depending on how information is
presented in any given review.}
Statement 1.1
Response:
Always applies
Version 3.0
Page 1 of 9
11/12/2012
Review date: None
Statement 1.2
Response:
Always applies
Statement 1.3
Response:
Always applies
Version 3.0
Page 2 of 9
11/12/2012
Review date: None
Statement 1.4
Statement 1.5
Response:
When blinding is
possible
The treatment and control groups were similar at the start of the trial
What does this statement mean?
Response:
Always applies
11/12/2012
Review date: None
Statement 1.6
Statement 1.7
The only difference between the groups is the treatment under investigation
What does this statement mean?
Response:
Always applies
Response:
Always applies
Version 3.0
Page 4 of 9
11/12/2012
Review date: None
Version 3.0
Page 5 of 9
11/12/2012
Review date: None
Statement 1.8
Statement 1.9
What percentage of the individuals or clusters recruited into each treatment arm of the study dropped out
before the study was completed?
What does this statement mean?
Response:
Always applies
{Enter percengtage}
All the subjects are analysed in the groups to which they were randomly allocated (intention to treat
analysis)
What does this statement mean?
Response:
Always applies
11/12/2012
Review date: None
Statement
1.10
Where the study is carried out at more than one site, results are comparable for all sites.
What does this statement mean?
Response:
In a multi-centre
trial
Version 3.0
Page 7 of 9
11/12/2012
Review date: None
Section 2
Section 2 relates to the overall assessment of the paper. It starts by rating the methodological quality of the study, based on
your responses in Section 1 and using the following coding system. This section is very important and your rating will appear in
the evidence table. PLEASE FILL IN.
Statement 2.1
How well was the study done to minimise the risk of bias or confounding?
Statement 2.2
++
High quality (++): Majority of criteria met. Little or no risk of bias. Results unlikely to be changed by further
research.
Acceptable (+): Most criteria met. Some flaws in the study with an associated risk of bias, Conclusions may
change in the light of further studies.
Low quality (0): Either most criteria not met, or significant flaws relating to key aspects of study design.
Conclusions likely to change in the light of further studies.
Taking into account clinical considerations, your evaluation of the methodology used, and the statistical power of the study, are
you certain that the overall effect is due to the study intervention?
This is your clinical judgement of the study.
Statement 2.3
Statement 2.4
Are the results of this study directly applicable to the patient group targeted by this guideline?
What does this statement mean?
Response:
Always applies
Yes
No
Notes. Summarise the authors conclusions. Add any comments on your own assessment of the study, and the extent to which
Version 3.0
Page 8 of 9
11/12/2012
Review date: None
it answers your question and mention any areas of uncertainty raised above. This is a very important part of the evaluation and
will feature in the evidence table. PLEASE FILL IN.
Version 3.0
Page 9 of 9
11/12/2012
Review date: None