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 PEDro-scale-partitioned-guidelines-jul2013.pdf Scientific Writing Skills and Technical Writing Skills PRISMA 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 Ottawa Hospital Research Institute GA Wells, B Shea, D O'Connell, J Peterson, V Welch, M Losos, P Tugwell, Nonrandomised studies, including case-control and cohort studies, can be challenging to implement and conduct. Assessment of the quality of such studies is essential for a proper understanding of nonrandomised studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) is an ongoing collaboration between the Universities of Newcastle, Australia and Ottawa, Canada. The face/content validity of the NOS has been established based on a critical review of the items by several experts in the field who evaluated its clarity and completeness for the specific task of assessing the quality of studies to be used in a meta-analysis. The evaluation of the NOS is currently in progress. Contact details: Professor GA Wells, Department of Epidemiology and Commuunity Medicine, University of Ottawa, Room 3227A, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1J 8M5, Canada

Critical Appraisal Tools Critical appraisal is an integral process in Evidence Based Practice. Critical appraisal aims to identify methodological flaws in the literature and provide consumers of research evidence the opportunity to make informed decisions about the quality of research evidence. Below is a list of critical appraisal tools, linked to the websites where they were developed. iCAHE staff will update this webpage as new critical appraisal tools are published. Healthcare Improvement Scotland have a tutorial on how to best conduct a critical appraisal for those that feel they need a refresher, and the linked YouTube clip gives an introduction to critical appraisal including how to incorpotate evidence into clinical decisions. Please choose a type of study: Randomised Controlled Trials Validation of the PEDro tool: Maher, C. link to Maher et al. 2003 article (pdf 301KB) top Non-Randomised Controlled Trials Other Quantitative Research Case studies Qualitative research Mixed Methods research Systematic Reviews

Evidence-Based Practice Research Group | School of Rehabilitation Science Members: Mary Law, Debra Stewart, Nancy Pollock, Lori Letts, Jackie Bosch, Muriel Westmorland, Angela Philpot Best practice in occupational therapy occurs when therapists, working in partnership with client(s), use research evidence along with clinical knowledge and reasoning to implement interventions that are effective. The McMaster Occupational Therapy Evidence-based Practice group focuses on research to critically review evidence regarding the effectiveness of occupational therapy interventions and to develop tools for evaluation of occupational therapy programmes. To date, our group has completed several initiatives, including: Development, evaluate and publication of a Programme Evaluation Workbook, to guide therapists (and rehabilitation teams) in evaluating the effects of their programmes.

Related: