|
Assignments
Listing of assignments associated with
this course.
|
|
|
|
Guides for
Assessing Quality of Evidence in Systematic Reviews
|
Hide| Edit| Delete
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Guide_for_Assessing_Quality_of_Systematic_Reviews.doc
(Guide is Below)
|
Hide| Edit| Delete
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Protocol
for a Campbell Collaboration Systematic Review: Due Date: December 22
|
Hide| Edit| Delete
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title
Registration Form
Due: Oct-15-08
|
Hide| Edit| Delete
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
- Can you find an important clinical question which the
review addressed?
- Was a thorough search done of the appropriate
databases and were other potentially important sources explored?
- Was methodological quality assessed and the trials
weighted accordingly?
- How sensitive are the results to the way the review
has been done?
- 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?
______________________________________________________________________________