Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Critical appraisal of published medical research (2)


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

Critical appraisal of published medical research (2)

  1. 1. Critical Appraisal of Published Medical Research Dr. Tarek Tawfik 11/27/13 Dr Tarek Amin 1
  2. 2. Consider the study design Consider the outcome variable Consider the predictor variables Consider the methods of analysis Consider the possible source of bias Consider the interpretation of results 11/27/13 Consider the utility of the results Dr Tarek Amin Steps in evaluation of a published paper Consider the research hypothesis 2
  3. 3. Stepwise Approach for Appraisal. Step 1. Consider the research hypothesis Is there a clear statement of the research hypothesis? Does the study address a question that has clinical relevance? 11/27/13 Dr Tarek Amin 3
  4. 4. Step 2. Consider the Study Design Is the study design appropriate for the hypothesis? Does the design represent an advance over prior approaches? Does the study use an experimental or an observational design? 11/27/13 Dr Tarek Amin 4
  5. 5. Step 3. Consider the Outcome Variable Is the outcome being studied relevant to clinical practice? What criteria are used to define the presence of disease? Is the determination of the absence or presence of disease accurate? 11/27/13 Dr Tarek Amin 5
  6. 6. Step 4. Consider the Predictor Variable How many exposures or risk factors are being studied? How is the presence or absence of exposure determined? Is the assessment of exposure likely t be precise and accurate? Is there an attempt to quantify the amount or duration of exposure? Are biological markers of exposure used in the study? 11/27/13 Dr Tarek Amin 6
  7. 7. Step 5. Consider the Methods of Analysis Are the statistical methods employed suitable for the types of the variables (nominal versus, ordinal versus continuous) in the study? Have the levels of type I and type II errors has been discussed appropriately? Is the sample size adequate to answer the research question? Have the assumptions underlying the statistical tests been met? Has chance been evaluated as a potential explanation of the results? 11/27/13 Dr Tarek Amin 7
  8. 8. Step 6. Consider Possible source of Bias ((Systematic Error Is the method of selection of subjects likely to have biased results? Is the measurement of either the exposure or the disease likely to be biased? Have the investigators considered whether confounders could account for the observed results? In what direction would each potential bias influence the results? 11/27/13 Dr Tarek Amin 8
  9. 9. Step 7. Consider the interpretation of the .results How large is the observed effect? Is there evidence of a dose-response relationship? Are the findings consistent with laboratory models? Are the effect are biologically plausible? If the findings are negative, was there sufficient statistical power to detect an 11/27/13 Dr Tarek Amin 9 effect?
  10. 10. Step 8. Consider how the results of the .study can be used in practice Are the findings consistent with other studies of the same questions? Can the findings be generalized to other human populations? Do the findings warrant a change in current clinical practice? 11/27/13 Dr Tarek Amin 10
  11. 11. Questions and Comments 11/27/13 Dr Tarek Amin 11