Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

RATING SCALE FOR ARTICLE ON DIAGNOSIS/SCREENING

Ring the
appropri
ate code
Yes

Unclear/
possibly

No

Not
applicable

RESULT
1. Are likelihood ratios (or necessary data) given?
2. Is the best cut point of clinical importance?
(I.e. Can the test usefully distinguish those with the
disease from those without?)
3. Is the estimate of sensitivity/specificity (or LR)
sufficiently precise
VALIDITY
Selection
4. Was the phase of the disease well defined?
5. Were patients are uniform point in this phase?
6. Was the origin of the population of potential subjects
(study populasion) described?
Measurement
7. Was assessment against the gold standard blind?
8. Was the gold standard applied to all subjects
independent of the test result?
9. Could I repeat the study using the methods as
described?
10. Was the repeatability of the test assessed?
Statistical analysis
11. Were additional factors that might modify the test
result (i.e. age, sex, disease phase) allowed for?
12. Were appropriate methods used?
13. Were any unusual methods explained or justified?
(I.e. are methods easily found in the standard
textbook-lots of references in MEDLINE? If so, it is
probably not unusual)
UTILITY
14. For those who test positive do the results help me
choose among alternative actions/treatments?
15. For those who test negative do the results help me
reassure /counsel patients?
TOTAL (add ringed score above):
No. of questions witch actually applied to this article (max=
15)
Maximum possible score (2xB):
OVERALL RATING ( A/C expressed as a percentage)
COMMENT:

(A)
(B)
(C)
%

RATING SCALE FOR ARTICLE ON DIAGNOSIS/SCREENING


RESULTS
1. Are likelihood ratios (or necessary data) given?
2. Is the best cut point of clinical importance?
(I.e. Can the test usefully distinguish those with the disease from
Those without?)
3. Is the estimate of sensitivity/specificity (or LR) sufficiently precise
VALIDITY
Selection
1. Was the phase of the disease well defined?
2. Were patients are uniform point in this phase?
3. Was the origin of the population of potential subjects (study populasion)
described?
Measurement
1. Was assessment against the gold standard blind?
2. Was the gold standard applied to all subjects independent of the
test result?
3. Could I repeat the study using the methods as described?
4. Was the repeatability of the test assessed?
Statistical analysis
1. Were additional factors that might modify the test result (i.e. age, sex,
disease phase) allowed for?
2. Were appropriate methods used?
3. Were any unusual methods explained or justified? (i.e. are methods
easily found in the standard textbook-lots of references in MEDLINE?
4. If so, it is probably not unusual)
UTILITY
1. For those who test positive do the result help me choose among
alternative actions/treatments?
2. For those who test negative do the results help me reassure /
Counsel patients?
TOTAL (add ringed score above):
No. of questions witch actually applied to this article (max= 15):
Maximum possible score (2xB):
OVERALL RATING (A/C expressed as a percentage):
COMMENT:

(A)
(B)
(C)
%

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen