Systematic Review Module 11: Grading Strength of Evidence Interactive Quiz Kathleen N. Lohr, PhD Distinguished Fellow RTI International.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Quantitative Synthesis II: Interactive Quiz Thomas Trikalinos, MD, PhD Joseph Lau, MD Tufts EPC.
Advertisements

Katrina Abuabara, MD, MA1 Esther E Freeman MD, PhD2;
If you are viewing this slideshow within a browser window, select File/Save as… from the toolbar and save the slideshow to your computer, then open it.
The Cost of Authoring with a Knowledge Layer Judy Kay and Lichao Li School of Information Technologies The University of Sydney, Australia.
Dr. Hamda Qotba, M.D,MFPH,FFPH
You can use this presentation to: Gain an overall understanding of the purpose of the revised tool Learn about the changes that have been made Find advice.
Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence on Diagnostic Tests Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for.
Advanced Topics in Standard Setting. Methodology Implementation Validity of standard setting.
Learning Objectives LO1 Understand the traditional approach to dealing with accounting uncertainty and going concern. LO2 Describe the main concepts of.
Using the Literature to Make Decisions. Objectives The student will identify information based questions from a clinical scenario. The student will classify.
Decision Criteria and Process Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children February 26-27, 2009.
A systematic review of interventions for children with cerebral palsy: state of the evidence Rohini R Rattihalli
Clinical Policy / Practice Guideline Development Andy Jagoda, MD, FACEP Professor of Emergency Medicine Mount Sinai School of Medicine New York, New York.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence July–August 2014.
Chapter 7. Getting Closer: Grading the Literature and Evaluating the Strength of the Evidence.
By Dr. Ahmed Mostafa Assist. Prof. of anesthesia & I.C.U. Evidence-based medicine.
Construct Validity and Measurement
Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines
Are the results valid? Was the validity of the included studies appraised?
Their contribution to knowledge Morag Heirs. Research Fellow Centre for Reviews and Dissemination University of York PhD student (NIHR funded) Health.
EBD for Dental Staff Seminar 2: Core Critical Appraisal Dominic Hurst evidenced.qm.
Epidemiology The Basics Only… Adapted with permission from a class presentation developed by Dr. Charles Lynch – University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Standardization and Test Development Nisrin Alqatarneh MSc. Occupational therapy.
The Audit Process Tahera Chaudry March Clinical audit A quality improvement process that seeks to improve patient care and outcomes through systematic.
Classroom Assessment A Practical Guide for Educators by Craig A
Slide 1 Long-Term Care (LTC) Collaborative PIP: Medication Review Tuesday, October 29, 2013 Presenter: Christi Melendez, RN, CPHQ Associate Director, PIP.
Searching for Relevant Studies Interactive Case Study Quiz: C. Michael White, Pharm.D., FCP, FCCP Professor and Director University of Connecticut / Hartford.
Research Techniques Made Simple: Evaluating the Strength of Clinical Recommendations in the Medical Literature: GRADE, SORT, and AGREE Mayra Buainain de.
Grading Strength of Evidence Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews Methods Guide.
ADEPT 1 SAFE-T Judgments. SAFE-T 2 What are the stages of SAFE-T? Stage I: Preparation  Stage I: Preparation  Stage II: Collection.
Systematic Review Module 7: Rating the Quality of Individual Studies Meera Viswanathan, PhD RTI-UNC EPC.
Vocabulary Mr. Gonce Table of Contents Introduction Task Start the Quiz.
Refining Key Questions: Interactive Case Study Quiz C. Michael White, PharmD, FCP, FCCP Professor and Director University of Connecticut / Hartford Hospital.
Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review What do we mean by confidence in a systematic review and in an estimate of effect? How should.
Clinical Writing for Interventional Cardiologists.
Study Eligibility Criteria: Interactive Quiz Melissa McPheeters, PhD, MPH Associate Director, Vanderbilt University Evidence-based Practice Center.
When to Select Observational Studies Interactive Case Study Quiz: Dan Jonas, MD, MPH Meera Viswanathan, PhD Karen Crotty, PhD, MPH RTI-UNC Evidence-based.
Law of Contrariness "Our chief want in life is somebody who shall make us do what we can. Having found them, we shall then hate them for it." Ralph Waldo.
Analytic Frameworks: Interactive Quiz Melissa McPheeters, PhD, MPH Associate Director for Methods, Vanderbilt University EPC Assistant Professor, Institute.
Issues concerning the interpretation of statistical significance tests.
META-ANALYSIS, RESEARCH SYNTHESES AND SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS © LOUIS COHEN, LAWRENCE MANION & KEITH MORRISON.
Quiz Title DIRECTIONS: Read each question and click on the correct answer. If you get it wrong use the arrow button to go back to the question and try.
TRAINING FOR ADR John Stirling Visiting Fellow Universities of Bradford and Northumbria.
Making epidemiological evidence more accessible using pictures Rod Jackson Updated November 09.
WHO GUIDANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EVIDENCE-BASED VACCINE RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS August 2011.
Recommendation Methods Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders and Genetic Diseases of Newborns and Children Ned Calonge, M.D., M.P.H.
Presentation of Findings: Interactive Quiz Melissa McPheeters, PhD, MPH Jeff Seroogy, BS Vanderbilt University Evidence-based Practice Center Joseph Lau,
Grading Strength of Evidence Interactive Quiz Prepared for: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Training Modules for Systematic Reviews.
EBM --- Journal Reading Presenter :呂宥達 Date : 2005/10/27.
Developing evidence-based guidelines at WHO. Evidence-based guidelines at WHO | January 17, |2 |
EVALUATING u After retrieving the literature, you have to evaluate or critically appraise the evidence for its validity and applicability to your patient.
9-1 Copyright © 2016 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Onsite Quarterly Meeting SIPP PIPs June 13, 2012 Presenter: Christy Hormann, LMSW, CPHQ Project Leader-PIP Team.
GDG Meeting Wednesday November 9, :30 – 11:30 am.
The US Preventive Services Task Force: Potential Impact on Medicare Coverage Ned Calonge, MD, MPH Chair, USPSTF.
Evidence-Based Dentistry Presenter’s Name. What does EBD mean?
Teach-back Method for Patient Education Tracy Grant Viterbo University.
Dr. Aidah Abu Elsoud Alkaissi An-Najah National University Employ evidence-based practice: key elements.
CRITICALLY APPRAISING EVIDENCE Lisa Broughton, PhD, RN, CCRN.
Classroom Assessment A Practical Guide for Educators by Craig A
Conflicts of interest Major role in development of GRADE
Presenter: Christi Melendez, RN, CPHQ
Overview of the GRADE approach – selected slides
Dr. Daniele Wikoff – ToxStrategies Experimental Biology 2017
Lecture 4: Meta-analysis
Grading Strength of Evidence
PED 212 Competitive Success/snaptutorial.com
PED 212 Education for Service/snaptutorial.com
Evidence Based Practice
What is a review? An article which looks at a question or subject and seeks to summarise and bring together evidence on a health topic. Ask What is a review?
Presentation transcript:

Systematic Review Module 11: Grading Strength of Evidence Interactive Quiz Kathleen N. Lohr, PhD Distinguished Fellow RTI International

Interactive Case Quiz: Instructions Open this presentation as a slideshow. This will activate the hyperlinks. When you come to a decision slide, choose the red box corresponding to the correct choice. If you are correct, you will be directed forward in the case. If you are incorrect, you will be directed back to the decision slide to choose again. – – Click on forward hyperlinks (Red Boxes) to follow through case based on your responses – – Click on home hyperlink (Blue House Icon) to go back to the last correct step in the series

Case Study Quiz: Grading Strength of Evidence (SOE) You are near the end of the process of developing a CER of the benefits and harms of a therapeutic intervention. This step entails grading the strength of one or more bodies of evidence that pertain to the key questions in your CER.

Participation Quiz: Question 1 Grading SOE is the same as rating the quality of studies. They are the same thing. You can grade SOE at the same time as you rate the quality of individual studies. You can grade SOE only after you have rated the quality of individual studies.

They Are the Same Thing This is incorrect. Individual studies are rated for their quality (i.e., internal validity or risk of bias). Grading pertains to entire bodies of evidence about important key questions, outcomes, or comparisons, and the quality of individual studies is just one element in grading SOE. [Click on Blue Box to Go Back]

You Can Grade SOE and Rate Quality at the Same Time This is incorrect. Grading pertains to entire bodies of evidence about important key questions, outcomes, or comparisons. Because domains other than the quality of individual studies must be used in grading SOE, evaluating study quality and SOE together is insufficient. [Click on Blue Box to Go Back]

You Grade SOE Only After Rating Study Quality Yes, you are correct. Grading SOE is a late step in the review process. It requires judgments about several key domains, only one of which is quality of individual studies. [SELECT RED BOX]

Participation Quiz: Question 2 Grading SOE specifies required domains. What are they? Risk of bias, consistency, precision, and directness Risk of bias, consistency, precision, directness, and publication bias Risk of bias, precision, strength of association, and directness

Four Required Domains Yes, You are correct! The four required domains are – – Risk of bias: quality ratings for individual studies – – Consistency: degree of similarity in the effect sizes of different studies within an evidence base – – Precision: degree of certainty for estimate of effect with respect to a specific outcome – – Directness: whether evidence reflects a single, direct link between the interventions of interest and the ultimate health outcome under consideration, or for comparisons, whether the evidence base has head-to- head studies [SELECT RED BOX]

Four Required Domains and Publication Bias This is incorrect. The four required domains are – – Risk of bias – – Consistency – – Precision – – Directness Publication bias is an additional domain that can and should be used only when relevant. [Click on Blue Box to Go Back]

Three Required Domains and Strength of Association This is incorrect. The four required domains are – – Risk of bias – – Consistency, which is the missing required domain in this answer – – Precision – – Directness Strength of association is an additional domain referring to magnitude of effect that can be used when relevant. [Click on Blue Box to Go Back]

Participation Quiz: Question 3 Strength of evidence is graded according to the following levels or grades: High, moderate, low, very low Very high, high, moderate, low, very low High, moderate, low, insufficient

High, Moderate, Low, Very Low This is incorrect. Very low is not an option. Use four SOE grades: – – High confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect – – Moderate confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect – – Low confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect – – Insufficient: Evidence either is unavailable or does not permit a conclusion [Click on Blue Box to Go Back]

High, Moderate Low, Insufficient Yes, this is correct. Strength of evidence can have three “strength” grades relating to the confidence one has that evidence reflects the true effect and that future research might confirm or overturn the results. Insufficient implies either that one has no relevant evidence or that the evidence is so mixed and inadequate that one cannot definitely label it as high, moderate, or low. [SELECT RED BOX]

Very High, High, Moderate, Low, Very Low This is incorrect. Very high and very low are not used. The four correct options for scores are – – High – – Moderate – – Low – – Insufficient [Click on Blue Box to Go Back]

Participation Quiz: Question 4 In combining scores for domains into an overall grade for strength of evidence, you can use the following approaches: Only the GRADE algorithm Only your own weighting system Only your own qualitative approach Any of the above

Only One Approach is Allowed This is incorrect. Any of the three approaches can be used. The critical element in selecting any option is careful documentation of the methods. [Click on Blue Box to Go Back]

GRADE, Own Weighting, or Own Qualitative Approach Yes, this is correct. Any of the three approaches can be used. The critical element in selecting any option is careful documentation of the methods. [SELECT RED BOX]

Participation Quiz: Question 5 In scoring required and additional domains and in arriving at an overall grade for strength of evidence, you Use only one senior reviewer to do these tasks and report this score. Use two or more reviewers, resolve differences by consensus or adjudication by a third party, and report all scores. Use two or more reviewers, resolve differences by consensus or adjudication by a third party, and report a consensus score.

Only One Reviewer This is incorrect. You should use at least two reviewers with appropriate clinical and methodological expertise. [Click on Blue Box to Go Back]

Two or More Reviewers and Report All Score This is incorrect. You should use at least two reviewers with appropriate clinical and methodological expertise. But Differences should be mediated or adjudicated by a third party. You should report only the consensus grade. [Click on Blue Box to Go Back]

Two or More Reviewers and Consensus Score Yes, this is correct. You should – – Use at least two reviewers with appropriate clinical and methodological expertise and – – Mediate or adjudicate differences by a third party But You should report only the consensus grade.