| 查看: 281 | 回复: 3 | |||
| 当前主题已经存档。 | |||
mangobunny银虫 (初入文坛)
|
[交流]
翻译：关于非随机对照实验的文献质量评价！
|
||
|
CODING MANUAL FOR CASE-CONTROL STUDIES SELECTION 1) Is the Case Definition Adequate? a) Requires some independent validation (e.g. >1 person/record/time/process to extract information, or reference to primary record source such as x-rays or medical/hospital records) b) Record linkage (e.g. ICD codes in database) or self-report with no reference to primary record c) No description 2) Representativeness of the Cases a) All eligible cases with outcome of interest over a defined period of time, all cases in a defined catchment area, all cases in a defined hospital or clinic, group of hospitals, health maintenance organisation, or an appropriate sample of those cases (e.g. random sample) b) Not satisfying requirements in part (a), or not stated. 3) Selection of Controls This item assesses whether the control series used in the study is derived from the same population as the cases and essentially would have been cases had the outcome been present. a) Community controls (i.e. same community as cases and would be cases if had outcome) b) Hospital controls, within same community as cases (i.e. not another city) but derived from a hospitalised population c) No description 4) Definition of Controls a) If cases are first occurrence of outcome, then it must explicitly state that controls have no history of this outcome. If cases have new (not necessarily first) occurrence of outcome, then controls with previous occurrences of outcome of interest should not be excluded. b) No mention of history of outcome COMPARABILITY 1) Comparability of Cases and Controls on the Basis of the Design or Analysis A maximum of 2 stars can be allotted in this category Either cases and controls must be matched in the design and/or confounders must be adjusted for in the analysis. Statements of no differences between groups or that differences were not statistically significant are not sufficient for establishing comparability. Note: If the odds ratio for the exposure of interest is adjusted for the confounders listed, then the groups will be considered to be comparable on each variable used in the adjustment. There may be multiple ratings for this item for different categories of exposure (e.g. ever vs. never, current vs. previous or never) Age = , Other controlled factors = EXPOSURE 1) Ascertainment of Exposure Allocation of stars as per rating sheet 2) Non-Response Rate Allocation of stars as per rating sheet CODING MANUAL FOR COHORT STUDIES SELECTION 1) Representativeness of the Exposed Cohort Item is assessing the representativeness of exposed individuals in the community, not the representativeness of the sample of women from some general population. For example, subjects derived from groups likely to contain middle class, better educated, health oriented women are likely to be representative of postmenopausal estrogen users while they are not representative of all women (e.g. members of a health maintenance organisation (HMO) will be a representative sample of estrogen users. While the HMO may have an under-representation of ethnic groups, the poor, and poorly educated, these excluded groups are not the predominant users users of estrogen). Allocation of stars as per rating sheet 2) Selection of the Non-Exposed Cohort Allocation of stars as per rating sheet 3) Ascertainment of Exposure Allocation of stars as per rating sheet 4) Demonstration That Outcome of Interest Was Not Present at Start of Study In the case of mortality studies, outcome of interest is still the presence of a disease/ incident, rather than death. That is to say that a statement of no history of disease or incident earns a star. COMPARABILITY 1) Comparability of Cohorts on the Basis of the Design or Analysis A maximum of 2 stars can be allotted in this category Either exposed and non-exposed individuals must be matched in the design and/or confounders must be adjusted for in the analysis. Statements of no differences between groups or that differences were not statistically significant are not sufficient for establishing comparability. Note: If the relative risk for the exposure of interest is adjusted for the confounders listed, then the groups will be considered to be comparable on each variable used in the adjustment. There may be multiple ratings for this item for different categories of exposure (e.g. ever vs. never, current vs. previous or never) Age = , Other controlled factors = OUTCOME 1) Assessment of Outcome For some outcomes (e.g. fractured hip), reference to the medical record is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for confirmation of the fracture. This would not be adequate for vertebral fracture outcomes where reference to x-rays would be required. a) Independent or blind assessment stated in the paper, or confirmation of the outcome by reference to secure records (x-rays, medical records, etc.) b) Record linkage (e.g. identified through ICD codes on database records) c) Self-report (i.e. no reference to original medical records or x-rays to confirm the outcome) d) No description. 2) Was Follow-Up Long Enough for Outcomes to Occur An acceptable length of time should be decided before quality assessment begins (e.g. 5 yrs. for exposure to breast implants) 3) Adequacy of Follow Up of Cohorts This item assesses the follow-up of the exposed and non-exposed cohorts to ensure that losses are not related to either the exposure or the outcome. Allocation of stars as per rating sheet NEWCASTLE - OTTAWA QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCALE CASE CONTROL STUDIES Note: A study can be awarded a maximum of one star for each numbered item within the Selection and Exposure categories. A maximum of two stars can be given for Comparability. Selection 1) Is the case definition adequate? a) yes, with independent validation ¯ b) yes, eg record linkage or based on self reports c) no description 2) Representativeness of the cases a) consecutive or obviously representative series of cases ¯ b) potential for selection biases or not stated 3) Selection of Controls a) community controls ¯ b) hospital controls c) no description 4) Definition of Controls a) no history of disease (endpoint) ¯ b) no description of source Comparability 1) Comparability of cases and controls on the basis of the design or analysis a) study controls for _______________ (Select the most important factor.) ¯ b) study controls for any additional factor ¯ (This criteria could be modified to indicate specific control for a second important factor.) Exposure 1) Ascertainment of exposure a) secure record (eg surgical records) ¯ b) structured interview where blind to case/control status ¯ c) interview not blinded to case/control status d) written self report or medical record only e) no description 2) Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls a) yes ¯ b) no 3) Non-Response rate a) same rate for both groups ¯ b) non respondents described c) rate different and no designation NEWCASTLE - OTTAWA QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCALE COHORT STUDIES Note: A study can be awarded a maximum of one star for each numbered item within the Selection and Outcome categories. A maximum of two stars can be given for Comparability Selection 1) Representativeness of the exposed cohort a) truly representative of the average _______________ (describe) in the community ¯ b) somewhat representative of the average ______________ in the community ¯ c) selected group of users eg nurses, volunteers d) no description of the derivation of the cohort 2) Selection of the non exposed cohort a) drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort ¯ b) drawn from a different source c) no description of the derivation of the non exposed cohort 3) Ascertainment of exposure a) secure record (eg surgical records) ¯ b) structured interview ¯ c) written self report d) no description 4) Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study a) yes ¯ b) no Comparability 1) Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis a) study controls for _____________ (select the most important factor) ¯ b) study controls for any additional factor ¯ (This criteria could be modified to indicate specific control for a second important factor.) Outcome 1) Assessment of outcome a) independent blind assessment ¯ b) record linkage ¯ c) self report d) no description 2) Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur a) yes (select an adequate follow up period for outcome of interest) ¯ b) no 3) Adequacy of follow up of cohorts a) complete follow up - all subjects accounted for ¯ b) subjects lost to follow up unlikely to introduce bias - small number lost - > ____ % (select an adequate %) follow up, or description provided of those lost) ¯ c) follow up rate < ____% (select an adequate %) and no description of those lost d) no statement [ Last edited by zzgyb on 2009-2-16 at 10:30 ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
085410 273求调剂
已经有9人回复
-
297求调剂
已经有16人回复
-
291求调剂
已经有11人回复
-
计算机22408 281分，求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
316求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
一志愿郑州大学 22408 305分求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
299求调剂
已经有8人回复
-
312求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
280求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
280求调剂
已经有13人回复
tspxian
木虫 (著名写手)
农民作家
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 6996
- 帖子: 1866
- 在线: 134.7小时
- 虫号: 589892
- 注册: 2008-08-30
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 无机合成和制备化学
2楼2009-01-07 12:14:46
3楼2009-01-07 13:42:39
mangobunny
银虫 (初入文坛)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 505.4
- 散金: 1
- 帖子: 34
- 在线: 11.4小时
- 虫号: 530444
- 注册: 2008-03-21
- 专业: 皮肤免疫性疾病
|
【帖子名称】：翻译：关于非随机对照实验的文献质量评价！ 【帖子链接】：http://muchong.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=1134090 【申请返还金币数量】:10金币 【申请返还金币原因】：2个虫友应答均不是符合求助的内容。 【申请返还金币原因在原帖子里楼层数】：4楼 |
4楼2009-01-18 07:41:16
