Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Cat Uro Fenis Erecio

    Uploaded by

    ahmad iffa maududy
    This document provides guidelines for evaluating different types of medical studies and assigning levels of evidence. It outlines 5 levels of evidence where level 1 indicates the highest quality evidence from randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses. Lower levels incorporate cohort, case-control, and case series studies. The document also describes 4 grades of recommendation based on the available levels of evidence where Grade A suggests consistent level 1 evidence and Grade D indicates inconsistent or inconclusive evidence of any level.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cat Uro Fenis Erecio

    Uploaded by

    ahmad iffa maududy
    15 views13 pages
    This document provides guidelines for evaluating different types of medical studies and assigning levels of evidence. It outlines 5 levels of evidence where level 1 indicates the highest quality evidence from randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses. Lower levels incorporate cohort, case-control, and case series studies. The document also describes 4 grades of recommendation based on the available levels of evidence where Grade A suggests consistent level 1 evidence and Grade D indicates inconsistent or inconclusive evidence of any level.

    Original Description:

    uro

    Original Title

    cat uro fenis erecio

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document provides guidelines for evaluating different types of medical studies and assigning levels of evidence. It outlines 5 levels of evidence where level 1 indicates the highest quality evidence from randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses. Lower levels incorporate cohort, case-control, and case series studies. The document also describes 4 grades of recommendation based on the available levels of evidence where Grade A suggests consistent level 1 evidence and Grade D indicates inconsistent or inconclusive evidence of any level.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    15 views13 pages

    Cat Uro Fenis Erecio

    Uploaded by

    ahmad iffa maududy
    This document provides guidelines for evaluating different types of medical studies and assigning levels of evidence. It outlines 5 levels of evidence where level 1 indicates the highest quality evidence from randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses. Lower levels incorporate cohort, case-control, and case series studies. The document also describes 4 grades of recommendation based on the available levels of evidence where Grade A suggests consistent level 1 evidence and Grade D indicates inconsistent or inconclusive evidence of any level.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 13

    Critical Appraisal of the Topics

     Is the article from a peer-reviewed journal ?


    This article is from peer-reviewed journal
    GATA Haydarpasa Teaching Hospital, Department of
    Screen for Urology, Istanbul, Turkey
    Initial Received April 05, 2016; Published 2016

    Validity Is the location of the study similar to mine so that the results, if
    valid, would apply to my practice ?
    and The location of the study is similar to ours so that the
    Relevance results, if valid, would apply to my practice
     Is the study sponsored by an organization that might influence the
    study design or results ?
    This research is not supported by any organization
    Will this information, if true, have a direct
    impact on the health of my patients, and is it
    something they will care about ?
    Screen for
    • This information, if true, have a direct impact on the
    Initial health of our patients, and something they will care
    Validity about

    and Is the problem addressed one that is common


    Relevance to my practice, and is the intervention or test
    feasible and available to me ?
    • The problem is common to my practice, but the
    intervention or test feasible and available to us
    Why the study was performed
    • to compare cancer detection rate of
    • normal, asymmetric or suspicious findings in DRE
    Determine • by using biopsy results
    the Intent
    of the • What clinical questions the investigators were
    Article addressing?
    • a few studies as a predictor of prostate cancer so
    that
    • there is no universally expected conclusion about
    asymmetry.
    Will the Can the result applied to the local population ? YES
    result help
    me locally
    Retrospective study 2014-2016

    Single centre Study.


    Disadvant
    ages

    6
     Four major clinical categories
    Determine  Therapy
    the Intent  Diagnosis
    of the  Causation
     Prognosis
    Article
    Clinical Description Preferred Study
    category Design

    Therapy Tests the effectiveness of a Randomized, double-

    Evaluate
    treatment, such as a drug, surgical blinded, placebo-
    procedure, or other intervention controlled trial

    the Diagnosis Measures the validity (is it


    dependable?) and reliability (will the
    Cross-sectional survey
    (comparing the new test

    Validity of same results be obtained every


    time?) of a diagnostic test, or
    with a reference
    standard)

    the Article evaluates the effectiveness of a test


    in detecting disease at a pre-

    Based on symptomatic stage when applied to a


    large population

    Its Intent Causation Assesses whether a substance is


    related to the development of an
    Cohort or case-control
    illness or condition
    Prognosis Determines the outcome of a disease Longitudinal cohort
    study
    Therapy/Prevention,
    Level Prognosis Diagnosis
    Aetiology/Harm
    1a SR (with homogeneity*) of SR (with homogeneity*) SR (with homogeneity*) of
    RCTs of inception cohort Level 1 diagnostic
    studies; CDR† studies; CDR† with 1b
    validated in different studies from different
    populations clinical centres

    Level 1 of
    Evidence 1b Individual RCT (with Individual inception Validating** cohort study with
    narrow Confidence cohort study with > good††† reference
    Interval‡) 80% follow-up; standards; or CDR†
    CDR† validated in a tested within one clinical
    single population centre

    1c All or none§ All or none case-series Absolute SpPins and


    SnNouts††
    Therapy/Prevention,
    Level Prognosis Diagnosis
    Aetiology/Harm
    2a SR (with homogeneity* ) of SR (with homogeneity*) of SR (with homogeneity*) of
    cohort studies either retrospective cohort Level >2 diagnostic studies
    studies or untreated
    Level 2 of 2b Individual cohort study
    control groups in RCTs
    Retrospective cohort study Exploratory** cohort study with
    Evidence (including low quality RCT;
    e.g., <80% follow-up)
    or follow-up of untreated
    control patients in an RCT;
    good†††reference standards;
    CDR† after derivation, or
    Derivation of CDR† or validated only on split-
    validated on split- sample§§§ or databases
    sample§§§ only
    2c "Outcomes" Research; "Outcomes" Research
    Ecological studies
    Therapy/Prevention,
    Level Prognosis Diagnosis
    Aetiology/Harm

    SR (with homogeneity*) of SR (with homogeneity*) of 3b and


    3a case-control studies better studies

    Individual Case-Control Study Non-consecutive study; or without

    Level 3,4,5 3b
    consistently applied reference
    standards

    of Evidence Case-series (and poor quality Case-series (and poor Case-control study, poor or non-
    4 cohort and case-control quality prognostic cohort independent reference standard
    studies§§ ) studies***)

    Expert opinion without explicit Expert opinion without Expert opinion without explicit
    critical appraisal, or based on explicit critical appraisal, or critical appraisal, or based on
    physiology, bench research or based on physiology, bench physiology, bench research or
    5 "first principles" research or "first principles" "first principles"
    A consistent level 1 studies

    consistent level 2 or 3 studies or extrapolations


    B
    Grades of from level 1 studies

    Recommen C
    level 4 studies or extrapolations from level 2 or
    3 studies
    dation
    level 5 evidence or troublingly inconsistent or
    D
    inconclusive studies of any level
    thank you..

    You might also like