29
Paula Funnell [email protected] Senior Academic Liaison Librarian (Medicine and Dentistry) Guide to Evaluating the Evidence

SSC in Evidence Based Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Session 4, workshop 3

Citation preview

Page 1: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Paula [email protected]

Senior Academic Liaison Librarian (Medicine and Dentistry)

Guide to

Evaluating the Evidence

Page 2: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Why?

To weigh up how valid and useful

the research will be

Page 3: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Why? – to save time

• 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%

Page 4: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

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

Page 5: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Brainstorm

What factors should you be bearing in mind when reading an article?

Think about• the research described• how it is reported

Page 6: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

RCT checklist

Page 7: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

How are the results presented?

• Number needed to treat (NNT)• Odds Ratio• Relative risk• Mean difference

Page 8: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Odds and risk

Odds of winning

1:9

You versus the rest

Risk of winning

1:10

You versus all the runners

10 horses running, you bet on 1 horse

Page 9: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Forest plots

more than 1less than 1 1

Page 10: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Forest plots

more than 1less than 1 1

Line of no effect

Page 11: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Forest plots

more than 1less than 1 1

Line of no effect

Page 12: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Forest plots

more than 1less than 1 1

Line of no effect

Best estimate

Page 13: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Forest plots

more than 1less than 1 1

Line of no effect

Best estimate

Confidence interval

Page 14: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Forest plots

more than 1less than 1 1

Line of no effect

Best estimate

Confidence interval

Page 15: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Forest plots

more than 1less than 1 1

Line of no effect

Best estimate

Confidence interval

Pooled result

Page 16: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

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

Page 17: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

How it works

• Involves answering a short questionnaire• We use the CASP questionnaires at

http://www.sph.nhs.uk/what-we-do/public-health-workforce/resources/critical-appraisals-skills-programme

• The questionnaires were devised by doctors for doctors

Page 18: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Summary

Validity

Is it trustworthy?

Results

What does it say?

Relevance

Will it help?

Page 19: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Group critical appraisal

1) Did the review address a clearly-focused question?

Page 20: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Group critical appraisal

2) Did the authors look for the appropriate sort of papers?

Page 21: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Group critical appraisal

Is it worth continuing?

Page 22: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Group critical appraisal

3) Do you think the important, relevant studies were included?

Page 23: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Group critical appraisal

4) Did the reviewers do enough to assess the quality of the included studies?

Page 24: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Group critical appraisal

5) If the results of the studies have been combined, was it reasonable to do so?

Page 25: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Group critical appraisal

6) What are the overall result of the reviews?

Page 26: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Group critical appraisal

7) How precise are these results?

Page 27: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Group critical appraisal

8) Can the results be applied to the local population?

Page 28: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Group critical appraisal

9) Were all important outcomes considered?

Page 29: SSC in Evidence Based  Medicine - Evaluating the evidence

Group critical appraisal

10) Are the benefits worth the harms and costs?