Qualitative Paper Sample
How to critically appraise a paper
How to review a paper 1 Checklist for a qualitative research paper 3 Checklist for material provided by a pharmaceutical company representative 4 Checklist for a paper that claims to validate a diagnostic or screening test 4 Checklist for a set of clinical guidelines 4 Checklist for a systematic review or meta-analysis 4 Checklist for an economic analysis 5 Checklist for health care organisations working towards an evidence based culture for clinical and purchasing decisions 5 Checklist for searching Medline or the Cochrane library 6
How to review a paper
Determine what a paper is about
• Why was the study done (what clinical question did it examine)? • Is …show more content…
Do they provide evidence on safety, tolerability, efficacy, and price? • Has each trial or meta-analysis defined the condition to be treated, the patients to be included, the interventions to be compared, and the outcomes to be examined? • Does the material provide direct evidence that the drug will help my patients live a longer, healthier, more productive, and symptom free life? • If a surrogate outcome measure has been used, what is the evidence that it is reliable, reproducible, sensitive, specific, a true predictor of disease, and rapidly reflects the response to therapy? • Do trial results indicate whether (and how) the effectiveness of the treatments differed and whether there was a difference in the type of incidence of adverse reactions? Are the results expressed in terms of numbers needed to treat, and are they clinically as well as statistically significant? • If large amounts of material have been provided by the representative, which three papers provide the strongest evidence for the company’s …show more content…
• Has this test been placed in the context of other potential tests in the diagnostic sequence for the condition?
Checklist for a set of clinical guidelines
• Did the preparation and publication of these guidelines involve a significant conflict of interest? • Are the guidelines concerned with an appropriate topic, and do they state clearly the goal of ideal treatment in terms of health and/or cost outcome? • Was the guideline development panel headed by a leading expert in the field (ideally it should not be) and was a specialist in the methodology of secondary research (for example, meta-analyst, health economist) involved? • Have all the relevant data been scrutinised and do the guidelines’ conclusions seem to be in keeping with the data? • Do they cover variations in medical practice and other controversial areas (for example, optimum care in response to genuine or perceived underfunding)? • Are the guidelines valid and reliable? • Are they clinically relevant, comprehensive, and flexible? • Do they take into account what is acceptable to, affordable by, and practically possible for
How to review a paper 1 Checklist for a qualitative research paper 3 Checklist for material provided by a pharmaceutical company representative 4 Checklist for a paper that claims to validate a diagnostic or screening test 4 Checklist for a set of clinical guidelines 4 Checklist for a systematic review or meta-analysis 4 Checklist for an economic analysis 5 Checklist for health care organisations working towards an evidence based culture for clinical and purchasing decisions 5 Checklist for searching Medline or the Cochrane library 6
How to review a paper
Determine what a paper is about
• Why was the study done (what clinical question did it examine)? • Is …show more content…
Do they provide evidence on safety, tolerability, efficacy, and price? • Has each trial or meta-analysis defined the condition to be treated, the patients to be included, the interventions to be compared, and the outcomes to be examined? • Does the material provide direct evidence that the drug will help my patients live a longer, healthier, more productive, and symptom free life? • If a surrogate outcome measure has been used, what is the evidence that it is reliable, reproducible, sensitive, specific, a true predictor of disease, and rapidly reflects the response to therapy? • Do trial results indicate whether (and how) the effectiveness of the treatments differed and whether there was a difference in the type of incidence of adverse reactions? Are the results expressed in terms of numbers needed to treat, and are they clinically as well as statistically significant? • If large amounts of material have been provided by the representative, which three papers provide the strongest evidence for the company’s …show more content…
• Has this test been placed in the context of other potential tests in the diagnostic sequence for the condition?
Checklist for a set of clinical guidelines
• Did the preparation and publication of these guidelines involve a significant conflict of interest? • Are the guidelines concerned with an appropriate topic, and do they state clearly the goal of ideal treatment in terms of health and/or cost outcome? • Was the guideline development panel headed by a leading expert in the field (ideally it should not be) and was a specialist in the methodology of secondary research (for example, meta-analyst, health economist) involved? • Have all the relevant data been scrutinised and do the guidelines’ conclusions seem to be in keeping with the data? • Do they cover variations in medical practice and other controversial areas (for example, optimum care in response to genuine or perceived underfunding)? • Are the guidelines valid and reliable? • Are they clinically relevant, comprehensive, and flexible? • Do they take into account what is acceptable to, affordable by, and practically possible for