"Similar quality of reporting may hide important differences in methodological quality, and well-conducted trials may be reported badly. A clear distinction should be made between these 2 dimensions of the quality of RCT" Huwiler-Muntener et al. JAMA 2002;287:2801-2804 The distinction between quality of reporting vs quality of study is important when teaching tools to assess the quality of a body of evidence (ie., casp, consort, stard, etc.) I´ve seen some confusion for the novel pupils in the field of EBM Quality of reporting is aimed at authors, meanwhile study quality is aimed at readers making a critical appraisal I made this distinction in a google spreadsheet (link below) I do not know if there are other spreadhseets or PPTs out there, and please, feel free to correct me or add the tools you consider viable. I know there are lots of them and I´ve never seen a head to head comparison in well designed studies, but as a beginning I thought we could add +/- vote for the ones we use the most? This is an open document, you can edit as you please https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ak_XirOwq9ZXdF9VR0xSVElCVk5ETnkyZVZOZkQ1MEE&hl=en -- Carlos A. Cuello-García, MD Director, Centre for Evidence-Based Practice-Tecnologico de Monterrey Cochrane-ITESM coordinator. Professor of Paediatrics and Clinical Research Avda. Morones Prieto 3000 pte. Col. Doctores. CITES 3er. piso,Monterrey NL, México. CP64710 Phone. +52(81)88882154 & 2141. Fax: +52(81)88882148 www.cmbe.net http://twitter.com/CharlieNeck The content of this data transmission must not be considered an offer, proposal, understanding or agreement unless it is confirmed in a document signed by a legal representative of ITESM. The content of this data transmission is confidential and is intended to be delivered only to the addressees. Therefore, it shall not be distributed and/or disclosed through any means without the authorization of the original sender. If you are not the addressee, you are forbidden from using it, either totally or partially, for any purpose