Solutions for public health 2010 casp appraisal tools

Ma, L. Methodological quality risk of bias assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: What are they and which is better?. Military Medical Research, 7 1 , 7. These summaries are written by the NCCMT to condense and to provide an overview of the resources listed in the Registry of Methods and Tools and to give suggestions for their use in a public health context.

We have provided the resources and links as a convenience and for informational purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by McMaster University of any of the products, services or opinions of the external organizations, nor have the external organizations endorsed their resources and links as provided by McMaster University.

McMaster University bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external sites. Section B Will the results help locally? Section C The 10 questions on the following pages are designed to help you think about these issues systematically. The first two questions are screening questions and can be answered quickly. A number of italicised prompts are given after each question.

These are designed to remind you why the question is important. Record your reasons for your answers in the spaces provided. About: These checklists were designed to be used as educational pedagogic tools, as part of a workshop setting, therefore we do not suggest a scoring system.

For each new checklist, a group of experts were assembled to develop and pilot the checklist and the workshop format with which it would be used. Over the years overall adjustments have been made to the format, but a recent survey of checklist users reiterated that the basic format continues to be useful and appropriate. Referencing: we recommend using the Harvard style citation, i. CASP insert name of checklist i. Qualitative Checklist.

Accessed: Date Accessed. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? This looks at longer term engagement. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered? Have ethical issues been taken into consideration?

Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? Is there a clear statement of findings? Findings may not be generalizable. How valuable is the research? Total views 8, Please see referencing details here. CASP Systematic review Systematic review is a review in which evidence on a topic has been systematically identified, appraised and summarised according to predetermined criteria. The outcomes of the people in the exposed group are compared to the outcomes of the people in the unexposed group to see if the exposure is associated with particular outcomes e.