A CAT includes for example a paper on harm and a paper on benefit - i agree
with Rod - CAT's whether we like the term or no are (probably) here to stay
- as well as all the other stuff about kittens, litter trays and 9 lives.
But if it helps more people enquire........
martin
Dr Martin Dawes
Director
NHS R&D Centre for Evidence Based Medicine
University of Oxford
John Radcliffe Hospital
Oxford OX3 9DU
-----Original Message-----
From: Rod Jackson [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 27 January 2000 01:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re[2]: Users' Guides to CATs on the WWW
Rosanne - while the term CAPs is more correct, it doesn't have the same
ring to it as CATs and fat CATs and I would strongly advise against
changing the term. This may seem a minor issue but I believe that the term
CAT has caught on in part because of the word itself (no RCT evidence for
this). I plaster pictures of cats over my CAT notes. I only introduced CATs
into medical student teaching 2 years ago and it is amazing how quickly it
has spread to registrars and senior clinicians.
Rod Jackson
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
>
> I agree- it's a neat project!
>
> Two more points/questions:
>
> 1) I think we should call them CAPs (critically assigned papers)
> rather than CATS- the word "topics" suggests that more than one paper
> has been reviewed
>
> 2) replicating search techniques has become difficult in these days
of
> PubMed and "see related articles"- after I find articles I find it
> difficult to trace back the actual strategy - any suggestions for how
> the search strategy can be found or how to write it up for
> publication?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rosanne Leipzig
>
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator
>_________________________________
>Subject: RE: Users' Guides to CATs on the WWW
>Author: <[log in to unmask]> at SMTP-for-MSSM
>Date: 01/25/2000 8:43 PM
>
>
>I would add a couple of questions:
>
>1. How complete was the description of attaining the data upon which the
>author(s) based the CAT?
>2. Was the description of the search technique replicable?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [log in to unmask]
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Rod
>Jackson
>Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 7:05 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Cc: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Users' Guides to CATs on the WWW
>
>
>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' gui
des"
>>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]
>
>
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:RFC822.TXT (TEXT/MSIE) (000182ED)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|