Evidence-Based Decision Making in Action: Part 2 – Evaluating and Applying the Clinical Evidence

Forrest, Jane L.; Miller, Syrene A.

doi:10.5005/jcdp-4-1-42

Cited by 15 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 127 papers retrieved, 19 were excluded from this review, as they did not provide a description of the critical appraisal tool used, or were published in languages other than English. As a result, 108 papers were reviewed, which yielded 121 different critical appraisal tools [1-5,7,9,15-102,116]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sixteen critical appraisal tools were generic. Of these, six were developed for use on both experimental and observational studies [9,91-95], whereas 11 were purported to be useful for any qualitative and quantitative research design [1,18,41,96-102,116] (see Figure 1, Table 1). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the remaining critical appraisal tools (N = 62), a single numerical summary score was not provided [1-4,9,25-36,60-73,78,79,84-90,94,95,98-102]. This left the research consumer to summarize the results of the appraisal in a narrative manner, without the assistance of a standard approach.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These guidelines were most frequently in the form of a handbook or published paper (N = 31) [2,4,9,15,20,25,28,29,31,36,37,41,50,64-67,69,80,84-87,89,90,95,100,116], whereas in 14 critical appraisal tools explanations accompanied each item [16,26,27,40,49,51,57,59,79,83,91,102]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools

Katrak

Bialocerkowski

Massy‐Westropp

et al. 2004

BMC Med Res Methodol

305

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundConsumers of research (researchers, administrators, educators and clinicians) frequently use standard critical appraisal tools to evaluate the quality of published research reports. However, there is no consensus regarding the most appropriate critical appraisal tool for allied health research. We summarized the content, intent, construction and psychometric properties of published, currently available critical appraisal tools to identify common elements and their relevance to allied health research.MethodsA systematic review was undertaken of 121 published critical appraisal tools sourced from 108 papers located on electronic databases and the Internet. The tools were classified according to the study design for which they were intended. Their items were then classified into one of 12 criteria based on their intent. Commonly occurring items were identified. The empirical basis for construction of the tool, the method by which overall quality of the study was established, the psychometric properties of the critical appraisal tools and whether guidelines were provided for their use were also recorded.ResultsEighty-seven percent of critical appraisal tools were specific to a research design, with most tools having been developed for experimental studies. There was considerable variability in items contained in the critical appraisal tools. Twelve percent of available tools were developed using specified empirical research. Forty-nine percent of the critical appraisal tools summarized the quality appraisal into a numeric summary score. Few critical appraisal tools had documented evidence of validity of their items, or reliability of use. Guidelines regarding administration of the tools were provided in 43% of cases.ConclusionsThere was considerable variability in intent, components, construction and psychometric properties of published critical appraisal tools for research reports. There is no "gold standard' critical appraisal tool for any study design, nor is there any widely accepted generic tool that can be applied equally well across study types. No tool was specific to allied health research requirements. Thus interpretation of critical appraisal of research reports currently needs to be considered in light of the properties and intent of the critical appraisal tool chosen for the task.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools

Katrak

Bialocerkowski

Massy‐Westropp

et al. 2004

BMC Med Res Methodol

305

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gold Standard refers to a method, procedure, or measurement that is widely accepted as being the best available. 1 The following software programs were part of the Gold Standard Suite for the first-year medical students: Harrison's Manual of Medicine, Stedman's Medical Dictionary, DrDrugs, Shots, ABX Guide, Eponyms, PubMed on Tap, AvantGo, AIM, Documents to Go, Acrobat Reader, and Versa Mail.…”

Section: Gold Standard Suitementioning

confidence: 99%

Application and Usage of Wireless PDAs in a First-Year Medical Curriculum

Joc

Thompson

2006

Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) have played an increasingly prominent role in the clinical rotation components (i.e., 3rd and 4th years) of many medical programs. However, to date very few medical schools have actively utilized these devices in the first year of medical studies. This paper will focus on the role librarians played in the implementation of wireless PDAs as a learning tool, into a new first-year medical curriculum. Issues discussed will include: the collaborative selection of a "Gold Standard" suite of PDA software; PDA orientation and training for faculty and students; integration of these devices; student PDA usage; and future directions.

show abstract