critical appraisal
DESCRIPTION
Critical appraisal workshop delivered to East of England Health Libraries Network, 1st April 2014TRANSCRIPT
Critical appraisal
Paula [email protected]
Faculty Liaison Librarian (Medicine and Dentistry)
Introduction to
Outline· Introduction to critical appraisal· Appraising quantitative research
Levels of evidence Statistics Group appraisal
· Appraising qualitative research Qualitative methodologies Group appraisal
· Running a critical appraisal workshop
Introduction
Evidence based healthcare
“When we intervene in the lives of others we should do so on the basis of the best evidence available regarding the likely consequences of that intervention”
G Macdonald, 1998
Macdonald, G. (1998). Promoting Evidence-Based Practice in Child Protection. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 3 (1), 71–85.
Steps of evidence based healthcare
1. The patient presents with a clinical problem
2. Formulate a focused research question
3. Search for the best evidence
4. Critically appraise the evidence you find
5. Consider the evidence in the light of your expertise and decide whether to apply it or not
Why critically appraise?
To weigh up how valid and useful
the research will be
Why critically appraise?
• In order to keep up to date, clinicians would have to read 17 articles a day, 365 days a year
• Research is of variable quality• Only an estimated 1% is
judged clinically relevant• Need to find the 1%
How it works
• Involves answering a short questionnaire
• We use the CASP questionnaires at http://www.casp-uk.net/
• The questionnaires were devised by clinicians for clinicians
• Remember to focus on appraisal not criticism
Quantitative research
What is quantitative research?
• Research on something that can be accurately measured
• Tends to use large, statistically representative samples
• Uses statistical methods to analyse data
• Represents findings with numbers• Attempts to eliminate bias
Systematic reviews
• A review of all the literature on a topic• Systematically identified• Appraised• Summarised
Question 1
Did the review ask a clearly focused question?
PICO
A focused clinical question:
P
I
C
O
Population / patient / problem
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome
Question 2
Did the authors look for the right type of papers?
Levels of evidence (therapy)
Systematic reviews
RCTs
Cohort studies
Case control studies
Expert opinion
1a
1b
2
3
4
5
Case series
http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025
Levels of evidence (therapy)
Randomised controlled trials
Outcome
Outcome
new treatment
control treatment
Question 3
Do you think the important relevant studies were included?
Publication bias
Papers with “interesting” results are more likely to be:
• Submitted and accepted for publication• Published in a major journal • Published in English• Quoted by authors• Quoted in newspapers
Question 4
Did the review’s authors do enough to assess the quality of
the included studies?
RCT checklist
Quality assessment
• Were the inclusion/exclusion criteria clear?
• Did they use any sort of scoring system?
• Were the studies for inclusion assessed by more than one reviewer?
Question 5
If the results of the review have been combined, was it reasonable
to do so?
Heterogeneity• Are the studies similar in terms of:
– Population– Intervention– Outcome– Methodology
• Are the results similar from study to study?
• Were any tests for heterogeneity carried out?
• Are there any discussions around heterogeneity?
Question 6
What are the overall results of the review?
How are the results presented?
• Number needed to treat (NNT)• Odds Ratio• Relative risk• Mean difference
Odds and risk
Odds of winning
You versus the rest
Risk of winning
You versus all the runners
10 horses running, you bet on 1 horse
1:9 1:10
Odds and risk
Odds of winning
You versus the rest
Risk of winning
You versus all the runners
10 horses running, you bet on 4 horses
4:6 4:10
Forest plots
more than 1less than 1 1
Forest plots
more than 1less than 1 1
Line of no effect
Forest plots
more than 1less than 1 1
Line of no effect
Forest plots
more than 1less than 1 1
Line of no effect
Best estimate
Forest plots
more than 1less than 1 1
Line of no effect
Best estimate
Confidence interval
Forest plots
more than 1less than 1 1
Line of no effect
Best estimate
Confidence interval
Forest plots
more than 1less than 1 1
Line of no effect
Best estimate
Pooled result
Confidence interval
Question 7
How precise are the results?
Confidence intervals
Practical exercise
P-value
Could the result have occurred by chance?
p = 0.001 (1 in 1000)
p = 0.2 (1 in 5)
A p-value of less than 0.05 (1 in 20) is considered to be statistically significant
Question 8
Can the results be applied to the local population?
Application
• Difficult to answer if you don’t have your own population
• Need to rely on experts• Think about whether the study could be
easy replicated with another population
Question 9
Were all the important outcomes considered?
Outcomes
• Do the authors address all the outcomes they set out to study?
• Are the outcomes considered from different viewpoints e.g. patient, practitioners, policy makers?
Question 10
Are the benefits worth the harms and the costs?
Benefit v harms and costs
• How significant are the benefits?
• Is there any discussion of possible side effects etc.?
• Are financial costs mentioned?
Summary
Validity
Is it trustworthy?
Results
What does it say?
Relevance
Will it help?
Qualitative research
What is qualitative research?
• Concerned with the world of human experience from the view of the participants
• Natural settings are used• A study is ‘led’ by the subjects’
experiences• Qualitative research is rigorous and
systematic• Results are not usually generalisable or
totally replicable
Components of qualitative research
Research question
Sampling process
Data collection
Data analysis
Question 1
Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research?
The research question
• Describes why the research is being carried out
• Qualitative research addresses the
questions• Are the aims of the research clear?
Question 2
Is a qualitative methodology appropriate?
Why qualitative research?
• Increases knowledge in an area that is poorly understood
• Challenges assumptions and practices• Acts as a precursor to quantitative
research• Generates new ideas
Question 3
Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of
the research?
Research methodologies
phenomenology
field research
groundedtheory
action research
ethnography
Question 4
Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the
research?
Sampling• Sample size can be determined by
– Data analysis– Time constraints
• What population does the sample refer to?
• How was the sample selected?
Sampling
Methods of sampling:• Convenience• Purposive • Quota• Snowballing
Question 5
Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research
issue?
Data collection
• Are the methods the most suitable for the research question?
• Are the methods explicit?• Is the venue clearly described?
Question 6
Has the relationship between researcher and participants been
adequately considered?
Reflexivity and researcher bias
VenueArea being studied
Types of interview questions asked
Meaning given to data
Question 7
Have ethical issues been taken into consideration?
Ethics
Need to consider:• Consent• Confidentiality• Professional responsibility• Reporting• Ethics committee approval
Question 8
Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?
Data analysis
• Description of analysis• Clarity of approach• Use of all the data• Potential for bias
Question 9
Is there a clear statement of findings?
The findings
• Are the findings explicit?• Are they credible?
– respondent validation– quality of argument– would another researcher make a similar
interpretation?– are alternative interpretations explored?
Triangulation in
terv
iew
s
observationsquestionnaire
patients
professionals
care
rs
Question 10
How valuable is the research?
Value of the research
Consider your appraisal of the paper in terms of:
• Credibility• Dependability• Transferability• Confirmability
How useful is the paper to you?
Questions to ask
Running a critical appraisal workshop
Before the session
• Who is the group?• Is it qualitative, quantitative, or both?• Know what equipment and facilities are
available• Ask participants to read the article in
advance
Structuring the session
• Dependent on the group and time frame• Presentation• Encourage audience participation• Use interactive activities • Practical critical appraisal in groups• Feedback
Choosing an article• For a mixed group choose a fairly generic
article• For a discipline specific group:
– Do you want to use a discipline specific article?– Ask for topic ideas– Not a good idea to let them choose the articles
• Choose studies with both strengths and weaknesses
• Make sure it’s easily available to all the participants
Any Questions?
The end!
Paula FunnellFaculty Liaison Librarian (Medicine & Dentistry)
Queen Mary University of [email protected]