CU Home

Search & Directories | A–Z Index | Help

 

Columbia University in the City of New York

Home Publications Workshop Bibliography EBP Course TOC Critical Appraisal Skills CourseTOC Systematic_Review_Course_TOC

 

Assignments

 

 

 

 

 

Assignments
Listing of assignments associated with this course.

Close the folder Guides for Assessing Quality of Evidence in Systematic Reviews.

Folder

 Guides for Assessing Quality of Evidence in Systematic Reviews

  Hide| Edit| Delete

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/vert.gif

Notes: This file includes three references to sources describing sets of questions to be asked when assessing the quality of systematic reviews & meta-analysis. As you prepare your protocols you may wish to consider how well you have addressed each of these questions.

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/l.gif

File

Guide_for_Assessing_Quality_of_Systematic_Reviews.doc (Guide is Below)

Hide| Edit| Delete

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

Close the folder Protocol for a Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review: Due Date: December 22.

Folder

 Protocol for a Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review: Due Date: December 22

  Hide| Edit| Delete

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

Notes:

Students may work in groups or alone to develop a protocol for a systematic review that meets the Campbell Collaboration or Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. The Campbell guidelines can be found at: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/guidelines.asp .  The Cochrane reference material can be found at http://www.cochrane.org/index_authors_researchers.htm . Students should follow the directions provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5. It will be helpful to use the Cochrane Collaboration software which is designed to facilitate preparation of protocols and reviews (RevMan). Both the Handbook and RevMan are downloadable free of charge. Students may wish to conduct the proposed review or submit the protocol at some later point to the Campbell or Cochrane Collaboration for approval but neither is required or expected. Due date for submission: December 22. Submit as an email attachment or in the CourseWorks dropbox for the instructor.

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

Close the folder Title Registration Form.

Folder

 Title Registration Form  Due: Oct-15-08

  Hide| Edit| Delete

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

Notes:

Select a topic for a Campbell-like or Cochrane-like systematic review. Complete the Title Registration Form and submit the form to the instructor for approval. The final assignment requires completion of a Campbell-like or Cochrane-type protocol for topic as described in the Title Registration Form. See instructions for the Title Registration Form at http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/guidelines.asp#Step2 . Visit the Campbell Collaboration web site and review protocols that include the title registration as a guide.

Students may work in groups or alone to develop a protocol for a systematic review that meets the Campbell Collaboration or Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. The Campbell guidelines can be found at: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/guidelines.asp .  The Cochrane reference material can be found at http://www.cochrane.org/index_authors_researchers.htm . Students should follow the directions provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5. It will be helpful to use the Cochrane Collaboration software which is designed to facilitate preparation of protocols and reviews (RevMan). Both the Handbook and RevMan are downloadable free of charge. Students may wish to conduct the proposed review or submit the protocol at some later point to the Campbell or Cochrane Collaboration for approval but neither is required or expected.

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/images/gui/folders/clear.gif

Guide for Assessing Quality of Evidence Coming from Systematic Reviews

 

Three guides for assessing systematic reviews are available for your use.

 

Greenhalgh, T. (2001). How to read a paper (2 ed.): BMJ Books. How to read a paper: Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses)

(available free on-line as part of the User’s Guide series below. See instructions for accessing the Users' Guide provided in the next citation below for Guyatt, et al. The series can be accessed under the "Further Study" tab of the Users' Guide.)

 

Rubin, A. (2007). Practitioner's guide to using research for evidence-based practice: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Figure 8.1, p. 162.

 

Gibbs, L. E. (2003). Evidence-based practice for the helping professions: A practical guide with integrated multimedia. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thompson Learning. Pp. 187-192. (Table 6 on pages 188-192 shows the Multiple Evaluations for Treatment Effectiveness –META – form which includes 21 criteria for assessment).

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Questions to Ask When Critically Appraising

Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses

From Greenhalgh (see reference for explanations and examples)

 

  1. Can you find an important clinical question which the review addressed?
  2. Was a thorough search done of the appropriate databases and were other potentially important sources explored?
  3. Was methodological quality assessed and the trials weighted accordingly?
  4. How sensitive are the results to the way the review has been done?
  5. Have the numerical results been interpreted with common sense and due regard to the broader aspects of the problem?

________________________________________________________________________

 

From Rubin, figure 8.1, p. 162

1. Does it specify a sufficiently narrow and well-defined question?

2. Is it transparent regarding the following questions?

3. Were its search procedures and inclusion criteria sufficiently comprehensive?

4. Were its exclusion criteria too restrictive?

5. Did those who sponsored, funded, or conducted the review have vested interests at stake in its conclusions? (Review authors should report whether any of them were involved in any studies included in the review and whether they have any sort of affiliation with or financial stake in any of the concerns being reviewed.)

6. Does it critically appraise the quality of included studies?

7. Does it sort out the evidence according to study quality?

8. Does it sort out the evidence according to client characteristics?  If so, do its conclusions seem to apply to your clients?

9. Does it inappropriately lump together clinically meaningful outcome indicators and clinically insignificant ones?

10. Did it use at least two review authors to – independent of one another –assess the quality of the studies and extract findings from the studies?

11. If yes to number 10, above, was there agreement between the assessments and findings of the review authors? If there were disagreements, how were they resolved?

12. Were strategies for dealing with missing data described?

13. Were steps taken to prevent bias in the review process?

14. Were clear and practical implications for practice articulated?

______________________________________________________________________________