Sheet1

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research Validity Questions EVIDENCE WORKSHEET SCORE: _________
Journal Article Title ___________________________________________________
Journal Article First Author _________________________________________________
Publication Year: __________________________________________
Journal Published: _______________________________________________________
Name of Primary Reviewer: _________________________________________________
Directions for Reviewers. For each Journal Article included in the systematic reviews, use one checklist. There are 30 questions
related to the quality of the study. Check Yes, No, Unclear or (N/A) for each question. Then score yes responses as 1.
No and unclear responses are scored with 0. N/A is not scored. Sum the responses and divide by the total number of questions answered.
YES NO UNCLEAR N/A
1. Research question
1.1 Was the research question clearly stated?
1.2 Was the authors' alternative hypothesis clear?
1.3 Was the target population and setting specified and appropriate?
2. Selection of study subjects
2.1 Were the inclusion/exclusion criteria specified with sufficient detail?
2.3 Did the exclusion criteria NOT pertain to the main exposure or the main outcome?
2.4 Was the study sample representative of the target population?
3. Response Rate
3.1 Were the response rates described?
3.2 Did response rates NOT differ by characteristics associated with the disease or exposure?
3.3 Did authors attempt to characterize the portion that did not participate?
4. Was the method for handling withdrawals described?
4.1 Were follow-up methods described with sufficient detail?
4.2 Was lost to follow-up NOT differential between the diseased groups?
4.3 Were lost to follow-up NOT related to the main exposure?
YES NO UNCLEAR N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent the introduction of bias?
5.1 For intervention studies, were subjects and others blinded to treatment groups?
5.2 Were the methods for assigning subject to groups described as randomly assigned?
5.3 Was there NO evidence of non-compliance?
6. Can causation be observed by the investigator?
6.1 Does the study design allow the investigator to infer causality?
6.2 Is the length of follow-up sufficient to produce an effect?
6.3 Did the exposure precede the disease?
7. Exposure and outcomes
7.1 Were primary outcomes and exposures described and relevant to the question?
7.2 Were the exposure measurements based on valid data collection instruments?
7.5 Was there NO potential for misclassification of the exposure?
8. Confounders
8.1 Were other factors (confounders) related to the disease and exposure identified?
8.2 Were appropriate methods used to control for confounders?
8.3 Did authors discuss residual confounding?
9. Statistical analysis
9.1 Were statistical analyses adequately described?
9.2 Were measures of effects reported with levels of significance or confidence intervals?
9.3 Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported?
10. Conclusions
10.1 Are the conclusions adequately supported by findings in tables and figures?
10.2 Are biases and limitations adequately discussed?
10.3 Were there no apparent conflicts of interest?
RIGOR WORKSHEET SCORING EVALUATION
80-100% is a rigorous study
70-80% is a marginally rigorous study *as long as 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 are yes.
70% or lower is not a rigorous study

Ray writers

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYSHELP