• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence
 

SSC in Evidence Based Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

on

  • 159 views

Session 4, workshop 3

Session 4, workshop 3

Statistics

Views

Total Views
159
Views on SlideShare
159
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence SSC in Evidence Based Medicine - Evaluating the evidence Presentation Transcript

    • Guide to Evaluating the Evidence Paula Funnell p.a.funnell@qmul.ac.uk Senior Academic Liaison Librarian (Medicine and Dentistry)
    • Why? To weigh up how valid and useful the research will be
    • Why? – to save time • In order to keep up to date, clinicians would have to read 17 articles a day, 365 days a year • Research is of variable quality • Only an estimated 1% is judged clinically relevant • Need to find the 1%
    • Publication bias Papers with “interesting” results are more likely to be: • Submitted and accepted for publication • Published in a major journal • Published in English • Quoted by authors • Quoted in newspapers
    • Brainstorm What factors should you be bearing in mind when reading an article? Think about • the research described • how it is reported
    • RCT checklist
    • How are the results presented? • • • • Number needed to treat (NNT) Odds Ratio Relative risk Mean difference
    • Odds and risk 10 horses running, you bet on 1 horse Odds of winning 1:9 You versus the rest Risk of winning 1:10 You versus all the runners
    • Forest plots less than 1 1 more than 1
    • Forest plots Line of no effect less than 1 1 more than 1
    • Forest plots Line of no effect less than 1 1 more than 1
    • Forest plots Line of no effect Best estimate less than 1 1 more than 1
    • Forest plots Line of no effect Confidence interval Best estimate less than 1 1 more than 1
    • Forest plots Line of no effect Confidence interval Best estimate less than 1 1 more than 1
    • Forest plots Line of no effect Confidence interval Best estimate Pooled result less than 1 1 more than 1
    • P-value Could the result have occurred by chance? p = 0.001 (1 in 1000) p = 0.2 (1 in 5) A p-value of less than 0.05 (1 in 20) is considered to be statistically significant
    • How it works • Involves answering a short questionnaire • We use the CASP questionnaires at http://www.sph.nhs.uk/what-we-do/publichealth-workforce/resources/critical-appraisalsskills-programme • The questionnaires were devised by doctors for doctors
    • Summary Validity Results Is it trustworthy? What does it say? Relevance Will it help?
    • Group critical appraisal 1) Did the review address a clearly-focused question?
    • Group critical appraisal 2) Did the authors look for the appropriate sort of papers?
    • Group critical appraisal Is it worth continuing?
    • Group critical appraisal 3) Do you think the important, relevant studies were included?
    • Group critical appraisal 4) Did the reviewers do enough to assess the quality of the included studies?
    • Group critical appraisal 5) If the results of the studies have been combined, was it reasonable to do so?
    • Group critical appraisal 6) What are the overall result of the reviews?
    • Group critical appraisal 7) How precise are these results?
    • Group critical appraisal 8) Can the results be applied to the local population?
    • Group critical appraisal 9) Were all important outcomes considered?
    • Group critical appraisal 10) Are the benefits worth the harms and costs?