China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Maximising validity in single-case designs
Published in Robyn L. Tate, Michael Perdices, Single-Case Experimental Designs for Clinical Research and Neurorehabilitation Settings, 2019
Robyn L. Tate, Michael Perdices
The structure of the present chapter is in three parts: first, we consider validity in relation to single-case designs and strategies that can be implemented to address (and hopefully overcome, or at least minimise) threats to validity. We focus on internal and external validity and provide a worked example from the neurorehabilitation literature to illustrate how threats to validity can be addressed. We then review a selection of published critical appraisal scales that evaluate methodological quality of single-case designs and which are also useful for designing scientifically robust studies. Finally, we describe a reporting guideline for single-case designs that was developed within the CONSORT tradition, which assists authors to write their reports with clarity, completeness, and transparency.
Evidence-based medicine
Published in David Coady, James Chase, The Routledge Handbook of Applied Epistemology, 2018
Robyn Bluhm, Kirstin Borgerson
More generally, the article claims that medicine was all-too-often based upon clinicians’ own experience, or on the pronouncements of authority figures, together with the knowledge of pathophysiology acquired in medical school. This provided an insufficient basis on which to evaluate new treatments and diagnostic tests. While both clinical experience and knowledge of disease mechanisms were necessary for good clinical practice, clinicians also needed a set of skills that would allow them to make proper use of the research literature. These skills included: the ability to precisely define a clinical problem; knowledge of how to critically assess the quality of the available studies, summarize them, and present their strengths and weaknesses; and the ability to extract the “clinical message” from the literature and apply it in the clinic (EBM Working Group 1992: 2421). Much of the contribution of EBM to medical practice1 has been in providing resources for acquiring these critical appraisal skills, for example in the Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature (Guyatt and Rennie 2001; Guyatt et al. 2015). The principles of critical appraisal have been increasingly incorporated into medical education.
Critical Appraisal Skills
Published in John C Watkinson, Raymond W Clarke, Louise Jayne Clark, Adam J Donne, R James A England, Hisham M Mehanna, Gerald William McGarry, Sean Carrie, Basic Sciences Endocrine Surgery Rhinology, 2018
Paul Nankivell, Christopher Coulson
Critical appraisal is a logical way of assessing the likely truth of a piece of research, evaluating the results in terms of individual patient care, and then assessing the whole and determining whether it is useful for your practice. It combines some knowledge of trial design, a small amount of basic arithmetic and some qualitative judgements.
Prevalence, motivation, and associated factors of medicinal herbs consumption in pregnant women from Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office: a systematic review
Published in Pharmaceutical Biology, 2023
Afaf Bouqoufi, Laila Lahlou, Fatima Ait El Hadj, Mohammed Abdessadek, Majdouline Obtel, Youssef Khabbal
The Quality assessments were conducted by two independent authors (Afaf Bouqoufi and Laila Lahlou) using a recent version of the Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal tools Checklist for Analytical Cross Sectional Studies. Critical Appraisal Tools | Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal tools [Internet] | Australia: JBI; [cited 2021 August 31]. Available from: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools. A third author (Youssef Khabbal) was consulted if consensus could not be reached. When information is missing from the studies, we contacted the authors via email. All observational studies were included irrespective of quality score. The articles with missing data were included as long as they presented the prevalence of plant use. The findings of the quality appraisal of eligible studies were reported in Figure 1.
The utilization and effects of filiform dry needling in the management of tendinopathy: a systematic review
Published in Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 2022
Dhinu J. Jayaseelan, Brian T. Faller, Melinda H. Avery
A number of limitations exist within this systematic review. Despite the inclusion of all study designs, only a few studies were found related to the clinical question. Within a small number of studies, the total number of participants is low. Moreover, within the studies, a number of methodological flaws and variances were noted and reporting was poor. The heterogeneity in methods and outcomes made meta-analysis impractical. The inclusion of various study designs requires a critical appraisal of the results. While the extent of available evidence was reviewed, potential bias in studies without a comparison group should not be discounted. Many of the included studies integrated DN as part of a multimodal approach. Subsequently, the determination of the discrete effect of DN for tendinopathy is limited. However, it can be argued that this modality is not performed in isolation in clinical practice, so a multimodal approach is more clinically relevant. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution and additional investigation into DN for tendinopathy is warranted.
The Effectiveness of the Safety Planning Intervention for Adults Experiencing Suicide-Related Distress: A Systematic Review
Published in Archives of Suicide Research, 2022
Monika Ferguson, Kate Rhodes, Mark Loughhead, Heather McIntyre, Nicholas Procter
Owing to the diversity of included study designs, four Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools were used to assess risk of bias at the study level, based on the best fit of the primary design of each study: randomized controlled trials (13 items; Tufanaru, Munn, Aromataris, Campbell, & Hopp, 2020), quasi-experimental studies (9 items; Tufanaru, Munn, Aromataris, Campbell, & Hopp, 2017), cross-sectional studies (8 items; Moola et al., 2020), and qualitative studies (10 items; Lockwood, Munn, & Porritt, 2015). The items in each are rated as yes, no, unclear, or not applicable; an overall “quality” score is not given for each paper. Again, this process was conducted in duplicate (MF & KR), with discrepancies discussed to reach consensus. We did not exclude any papers based on quality; instead, trends across papers of each study design are discussed to assess risk of bias across the data set.