background preloader

STROBE Statement: Home

STROBE Statement: Home
Related:  Materials for reviewers

PRISMA The PRISMA Statement The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors report a wide array of systematic reviews to assess the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. PRISMA focuses on ways in which authors can ensure the transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have adopted the definitions of systematic review and meta-analysis used by the Cochrane Collaboration [9]. A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Download a full-text copy of the PRISMA Statement here Download a full-text copy of the PRISMA Statement in Spanish here The PRISMA Statement consists of a checklist and a flow diagram, and is intended to be accompanied by the PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration document. The PRISMA Checklist

The CONSORT Group > CONSORT Statement > Overview DOWNLOADSCONSORT Statement 2010: CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration Document: The CONSORT Statement is intended to improve the reporting of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), enabling readers to understand a trial's design, conduct, analysis and interpretation, and to assess the validity of its results. It emphasizes that this can only be achieved through complete transparency from authors. Investigators and editors developed and revised the CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement to help authors improve reporting of two-parallel design RCTs by using a checklist and flow diagram. Extensions of the CONSORT Statement have been developed for other types of study designs, interventions and data. The Checklist The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Other information. Templates of the CONSORT 2010 checklist are available to download in MS Word and in PDF. The Flow Diagram Translations

The EQUATOR Network | Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research INTRODUCTION These Guidelines are intended for investigators, health policy-makers, members of ethical review committees, and others who have to deal with ethical issues that arise in epidemiology. They may also assist in the establishment of standards for ethical review of epidemiological studies. The Guidelines are an expression of concern to ensure that epidemiological studies observe ethical standards. These standards apply to all who undertake any of the types of activity covered by the Guidelines. Investigators must always be held responsible for the ethical integrity of their studies. Epidemiology is defined as the study of the distribution and determinants of health-related states or events in specified populations, and the application of this study to control of health problems. Epidemiology has greatly improved the human condition in the present century. Epidemiological research is of two main types: observational and experimental: Informed Consent Individual consent 1. 2. 3. 4.

PEDro-scale-partitioned-guidelines-jul2013.pdf Scientific Writing Skills and Technical Writing Skills PRISMA Guidelines for Good Pharmacoepidemiology Practices Guidelines for Good Pharmacoepidemiology Practices (GPP) Initially issued: 1996 Revision 1: August 2004 Revision 2: April 2007 Introduction Pharmacoepidemiologic studies provide valuable information about the health effects of healthcare products. ISPE recognizes that pharmacoepidemiologic research-the study of the use and effects of healthcare products (e.g., including pharmaceuticals, devices and vaccines)-has expanded to include clinical, economic and other health outcomes, requiring study methods that were not covered in previous guidelines. The Guidelines for Good Pharmacoepidemiology Practices (GPP) have been adapted from a document prepared by the Chemical Manufacturer's Association Epidemiology Task Group.1 When appropriate, we have (with permission) retained the text of that document. The GPP address the following areas: A. The GPP have the following specific goals: B. Top of Page II. Each study should have a written protocol. III. A. B. C. D. E. IV. A. B. C. D.

PEDro scale (English) PEDro The PEDro scale was last amended on 21 June 1999. This briefly explains why each item has been included in the PEDro scale. More detail on each item is provided in the PEDro scale training program. 1. eligibility criteria were specified Note on administration: This criterion is satisfied if the report describes the source of subjects and a list of criteria used to determine who was eligible to participate in the study. Explanation: This criterion influences external validity, but not the internal or statistical validity of the trial. 2. subjects were randomly allocated to groups (in a crossover study, subjects were randomly allocated an order in which treatments were received) Note on administration: A study is considered to have used random allocation if the report states that allocation was random. Explanation: Random allocation ensures that (within the constraints provided by chance) treatment and control groups are comparable. 3. allocation was concealed For all criteria

GRADE working group ENCePP Methodological Standards in Pharmacoepidemiology ENCePP Guide on Methodological Standards in Pharmacoepidemiology The Guide on Methodological Standards in Pharmacoepidemiology offers a single web resource for methodological English language guidance in pharmacoepidemiology. For each topic covered, direct electronic access is given to internationally agreed recommendations and key points from important guidelines, published articles and textbooks. Where relevant, gaps in existing guidance have been addressed with what ENCePP considers good practice. The guide is updated annually by structured review to maintain its dynamic nature. It may also be amended as necessary in response to comments received. The current version of the Guide is Revision 2, dated June 2013, which includes two new chapters: comparative effectiveness research and vaccine safety and effectiveness. Relevant documents: Individual Chapters: