Sorry I
am resending this one with a message header this time just in case, like me,
you delete automatically anything without a message
header.
Dear
All
I am hoping that you can help me
with this one. We are currently conducting appraisal and review activity for a
national governmental organisation. The output is a digest of significant
articles on a pre-specified topic with a brief critically appraised summary
for each item. The articles comprise all research methodologies (e.g. RCTs,
observational studies, qualitative research and even secondary forms such as
systematic reviews and guidelines)
Specifically in connection with
the appraisal part of the process it seems we have three
options:
1.
Use a *checklist specific to each study design*.
This is the most time intensive option and could result in an inconsistent
format of reporting and analysis.
2.
Use a *mixed-methods checklist* and only use the
questions that apply to each article. This reduces inconsistency but will
result in redundancy of some checklist items and may prove
unwieldy.
3.
Use a *generic checklist* that can be used for
all study types. This would result in consistency of reporting but might
require supplementary questions regarding specific study types (e.g. a
question on randomisation specifically for RCTs).
Obviously having been involved in
systematic reviews, critical appraisal and HTAs for almost a decade we have
amassed large numbers of study-design-specific checklists. My question
therefore relates ONLY to options 2 and 3 above:
1.
Have any of you used either a
mixed-methods checklist or a generic checklist to appraise consistently a
“mixed bag” of study types and designs?
2.
If so, is there a particular
critical appraisal tool/checklist/instrument that you would recommend for this
purpose?
I am willing to collate replies if
there is wider interest in this topic.
Thanking you for your assistance –
Yours in anticipation
Andrew
Andrew
Booth
Director of
Information Resources and Senior Lecturer in Evidence Based Healthcare
Information
