Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies - NIHR Health ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix 2Author:Accession No:Endnote No:Journal:Did the review use validity assessment?Did the review consider CMA?Year:Were results clearly reported by study design?Was the VA/CMA considered in the study synthesis?Type of review:Aim of intervention:Intervention type:Disease category:Literature searchDatabase1:Database2:Database3:Database4:Database5:Database6:Other search1:Other search2:Other search3:Other search4:Other search5:Other search6:Inclusion criteriaInclusion criteria1:Inclusion criteria2:No of studies considered:No of studies excluded:Languages included:Type/number of studiesTotal no of studies:No of RCTs:No of non-RCTs:Total no of patients:No patients:No patients:List type of non-RCTs:No of non-comp:No patients:List type of non-comp:Quality assessmentWas VA carried out?Was independent VA carried out?Same elig criteria?Similar study dates?Was same tool used for all designs?Type of tool:Tool methodSpecify tool:Study designs:Tool described?:Tool details:VA results reportedSpecify other:116
Health Technology Assessment 2003; Vol. 7: No. 27Endnote No:Study synthesisIf Yes, how?If quantitativeWas VA considered in study synthesis?Weighted by sample size?Quality threshold definedDefine qual threshold:Extract results?Describe VA method:Summarise resultsResultsPrimary outcomeWhat was the overall conclusion of the review?1:2:3:4:5:6:Describe quantitative results: Statistical measure: Specify otherComparisonPoint estimate95% CI Lower Upper P value00 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0117© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2003. All rights reserved.
Page 1 and 2:
Health Technology Assessment 2003;
Page 3 and 4:
Evaluating non-randomisedinterventi
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
© Queen’s Printer and Controller
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
© Queen’s Printer and Controller
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33:
Page 36 and 37:
Evaluation of checklists and scales
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
32TABLE 8 Details of top 60 quality
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
38TABLE 10 Other domains: reporting
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Use of quality assessment in system
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Empirical estimates of bias associa
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Empirical evaluation of the ability
Page 78 and 79: Empirical evaluation of the ability
Page 82 and 83: 70TABLE 22 Comparison of concurrent
Page 86 and 87: 74TABLE 26 Comparison of methods of
Page 92 and 93: 80TABLE 33 Hypothetical example dem
Page 94 and 95: 82TABLE 34 Hypothetical example dem
Page 100 and 101: Discussion and conclusions88histori
Page 102 and 103: Discussion and conclusions90For exa
Page 104 and 105: Discussion and conclusionsNon-rando
Page 107 and 108: Health Technology Assessment 2003;
Page 121: Health Technology Assessment 2003;
Page 124 and 125: Appendix 1data)) or (non-random$ or
Page 126 and 127: Appendix 2AuthorYearENDARESourcePub
Page 130 and 131: Appendix 20 0 00Additional outcomes
Page 132 and 133: Appendix 2Endnote NoWas CMA conside
Page 134 and 135: 122AuthorOrigin aModified toolTool
Page 148 and 149: Appendix 4136DuRant, 1994 99The typ
Page 155 and 156: © Queen’s Printer and Controller
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185:
Page 188 and 189:
Health Technology Assessment Progra
Page 190:
Health Technology Assessment Progra
show all

Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies - NIHR Health ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?