The UK Faculty of Public Health has recently taken ownership of the Health Knowledge resource. This new, advert-free website is still under development and there may be some issues accessing content. Additionally, the content has not been audited or verified by the Faculty of Public Health as part of an ongoing quality assurance process and as such certain material included maybe out of date. If you have any concerns regarding content you should seek to independently verify this.

Critical Appraisal Frameworks

Critical Appraisal Frameworks

Summarise Article in a few lines - ie abstract

Comment on: author, journal, recency
State briefly study design and what done with main conclusion.
e.g. 'an RCT assessing treatment A against B which showed A to be better than B..'

Then consider each section of the paper in turn:

1.Introduction

  • Is objective clear?
  • Is study important?
  • Is study relevant?

2. Method : Assess:

- setting

- subjects

  • choice of source population
  • method of sampling
  • controls
  • cases - who, how, numbers, selection, exclusion..

- design

  • type, appropriate
  • sample size calculation / statistical power

- intervention/ data collection - quality

  • quality control
  • validity
  • reproducibility

- data analysis

  • how is this done and is it appropriate
  • assess statistics
  • any gaps in the data

3. Results

  • Are they clearly presented? (text and tables)
  • is the response rate good?
  • Is there any missing data? - drop outs/non responders/deaths/missing data
  • Are the results interpreted correctly?
  • State statistically significant results and explain Confidence Intervals/sensitivity/specificity/PPV/clinical significance
  • Is the sample size good / sufficient?

4. Internal validity of study

Could results be explained by:
a) Chance

  • multiple testing
  • check CI an p values
  • sample size/power

b) Bias

  • selection bias
  • information bias
    • random misclassification
    • recall
    • observer bias

c) Confounding

  • age, sex, social class, smoking
  • design: matching , stratification
  • analysis: standardisation, stratify

5. External validity of study

  • Is it generalisable to population / to UK
  • Are results relevant

6. Discussion

  • Are the objectives covered?
  • Are limitations of study discussed?
  • Are conclusions justified from results? NB: many studies don't
  • Are the results relevant/ important?

7. Importance of results to public health practice

8. Any other strengths/ weaknesses

Extras: How might it have been better. E.g. RCT might have been better than CC

Critical Appraisal of particular study types.- Key Points in addition to generic

Surveys:

  • who was studied?
  • How was sample obtained?
  • What was response rate?

Cohort studies:

  • who exactly has been studied?
  • Was a control group used? (should one have been used?)
  • How adequate was follow up?

Case control studies:

  • How were cases obtained?
  • Is control group appropriate?
  • Was data collected in the same way for cases and controls?

Clinical trials:

  • Were treatments randomly allocated?
  • Were all patients accounted for?
  • Were outcomes assessed blind?

Qualitative studies:

  • Were the relationships between the researcher and those studied adaquately considered?
  • Was the analysis conducted rigorously to remove researcher bias?
  • To what population is this study generalisable

Review Papers:

  • How were papers identified?
  • How was quality of papers assessed?
  • How were results summarised?