Dear Victor - this is a great initiative.
I like your descriptions of a CAT (based on indiv papers/studies) and a big
fat CAT (systematic reviews, meta-analyses of papers) although why don't we
simply call the latter FAT CATs. Individuals CATs are the building blocks
of a FAT CAT.
With regard to your users guide on CATs, I think you should consider
separating CATs from FAT CATs, at present they are mixed up. Under your A
questions, No.1 is relevant to both, No 2.and No. 3 are for FAT CATs, No. 4
is for CATs, etc. I also wonder whether your B questions are necessary.
Most busy clinicians will probably be able to complete CATs but FAT CATs
are more time comsuming, but one could imagine a group of clinicians doing
individual CATs then bringing them together as a FAT CAT.
It would be beneficial to get the CAT/FAT CAT terminology into the general
clinical language, as the downside of many CATs is that they focus on
individual studies, yet one cannot build a FAT CAT unless the individual
CATs have already been completed.
cheers Rod Jackson
>Dear friends and colleagues,
>
>After almost a year, we are getting close to completing our evaluation of
>the CATs (critically appraised topics) currently available on the WWW. We
>want to contribute, at the end of our analysis, with a set "users' guides"
>to CATs on the Internet. These guides had to include validity criteria for
>systematic reviews (the big fat CAT) as well as criteria for health
>information on the web. The hybrid was challenged, torn, reconstructed, and
>destroyed several times. This is its current format (see below).
>
>I will appreciate comments from Internet information users, Users' guides
>authors, CAT authors, CAT site owners, and the list at large.
>
>Thanks a million for your input.
>
>Victor Montori, MD
>Mayo IM EBM Working Group
>Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Users' Guides to CAT-containing sites on the WWW
>A. Criteria for content, currency of information, and attribution and
>documentation of CATs on the Internet
>
>Is the CAT valid?
>1. Was the CAT focused by a well-built clinical question?
>2. Was an explicit and sensible process used to identify and select the
>evidence?
>3. Was the evidence appraised the best available to answer the
>question? Is it unlikely that relevant studies were missed?
>4. Were the appropriate validity criteria applied to the evidence
>appraised?
>5. Are all the dates clearly stated? Date of search, date of
>publication, date of expiration?
>
>What is the CAT's message?
>1. What is the CAT's message?
>2. How strong is the message?
>
>Will the CAT's message help me in my patient care?
>1. Can I apply the message in my patient care setting, to my patients?
>2. Were all clinically important outcomes, benefits, harms, and costs
>discussed?
>
>B. Criteria for authority of authors, disclosure of competing interests, and
>feedback mechanism
>1. Is the academic or training level of the authors or commentators
>clearly stated?
>2. Have the authors, site developers, and sponsors disclose all
>competing interests?
>3. Is there a mechanism to contact the authors?
Rodney Jackson MBChB PhD FAFPHM
Professor of Epidemiology
Head of Department
Dpt of Community Health
Faculty of Medical & Health Sciences
University of Auckland
(Grafton Mews, 52-54 Grafton Rd)
Private Bag 92019
Auckland, New Zealand
Phone: +64 (0)9-3737599 ext 6343
Fax: +64 (0)9-3737494
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|